Sex-specific association between infant caudate volumes and a polygenic risk score for major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores for major depressive disorder (PRS-MDD) have been identified in large genome-wide association studies, and recent findings suggest that PRS-MDD might interact with environmental risk factors to shape human limbic brain development as early as in the period. Striatal structures are crucially involved in depression; however, the association of PRS-MDD with infant striatal volumes is yet unknown. In this study, 105 Finnish mother-infant dyads (44 female, 11-54 days old) were investigated to reveal how infant PRS-MDD is associated with infant dorsal striatal volumes (caudate, putamen) and whether PRS-MDD interacts with maternal depressive (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, gestational weeks 14, 24, 34) on infant striatal volumes. A robust sex-specific main effect of PRS-MDD on bilateral infant caudate volumes was observed. PRS-MDD were more positively associated with caudate volumes in boys compared to girls. No significant interaction effects of genotype PRS-MDD with the environmental risk factor prenatal maternal depressive symptoms (genotype-by-environment interaction) nor significant interaction effects of genotype with maternal depressive and sex (genotype-by-environment-by-sex interaction) were found for infant dorsal striatal volumes. Our study showed that a higher PRS-MDD irrespective of exposure to maternal depressive is associated with smaller bilateral caudate volumes, an indicator of greater susceptibility to major depressive disorder, in female compared to male infants. This sex-specific polygenic effect might lay the ground for the higher prevalence of depression in women compared to men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".