Genome-wide association analyses of individual differences in quantitatively assessed reading- and language-related skills in up to 34,000 people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of spoken and written language is a capacity that is unique to humans. Individual differences in reading- and language-related skills are influenced by genetic variation, with twin-based heritability estimates of 30-80%, depending on the trait. The relevant genetic architecture is complex, heterogeneous, and multifactorial, and yet to be investigated with well-powered studies. Here, we present a multicohort genome-wide association study (GWAS) of five traits assessed individually using psychometric measures: word reading, nonword reading, spelling, phoneme awareness, and nonword repetition, with total sample sizes ranging from 13,633 to 33,959 participants aged 5-26 years (12,411 to 27,180 for those with European ancestry, defined by principal component analyses). We identified a genome-wide significant association with word reading (rs11208009, p=1.098 × 10 −8 ) independent of known loci associated with intelligence or educational attainment. All five reading-/language-related traits had robust SNP-heritability estimates (0.13–0.26), and genetic correlations between them were modest to high. Using genomic structural equation modelling, we found evidence for a shared genetic factor explaining the majority of variation in word and nonword reading, spelling, and phoneme awareness, which only partially overlapped with genetic variation contributing to nonword repetition, intelligence and educational attainment. A multivariate GWAS was performed to jointly analyse word and nonword reading, spelling, and phoneme awareness, maximizing power for follow-up investigation. Genetic correlation analysis of multivariate GWAS results with neuroimaging traits identified association with cortical surface area of the banks of the left superior temporal sulcus, a brain region with known links to processing of spoken and written language. Analysis of evolutionary annotations on the lineage that led to modern humans showed enriched heritability in regions depleted of Neanderthal variants. Together, these results provide new avenues for deciphering the biological underpinnings of these uniquely human traits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".