A scoping review and comparison of approaches for measuring genetic heterogeneity in psychiatric disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An improved understanding of genetic etiological heterogeneity in a psychiatric condition may help us (a) isolate a neurophysiological 'final common pathway' by identifying its upstream genetic origins and (b) facilitate characterization of the condition's phenotypic variation. This review aims to identify existing genetic heterogeneity measurements in the psychiatric literature and provides a conceptual review of their mechanisms, limitations, and assumptions. The Scopus database was searched for studies that quantified genetic heterogeneity or correlation of psychiatric phenotypes with human genetic data. Ninety studies were included. Eighty-seven reports quantified genetic correlation, five applied genomic structural equation modelling, three evaluated departure from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium at one or more loci, and two applied a novel approach known as MiXeR. We found no study that rigorously measured genetic etiological heterogeneity across a large number of markers. Developing such approaches may help better characterize the biological diversity of psychopathology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it