Potential Genetic Overlap Between Insomnia and Sleep Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder: A Polygenic Risk Score Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of insomnia and hypersomnia in depressed individuals is substantially higher than that found in the general population. Unfortunately, these concurrent sleep problems can have profound effects on the disease course. Although the full biology of sleep remains to be elucidated, a recent genome-wide association (GWAS) of insomnia, and other sleep traits in over 1 million individuals was recently published and provides many promising hits for genetics of insomnia in a population-based sample. Methods: Using data from the largest available GWAS of insomnia and other sleep traits, we sought to test if sleep variable PRS scores derived from population-based studies predicted sleep variables in samples of depressed cases [Psychiatric Genomics Consortium - Major Depressive Disorder subjects (PGC MDD)]. A leave-one-out analysis was performed to determine the effects that each individual study had on our results. Results: The only significant finding was for insomnia, where p-value threshold, p = 0.05 was associated with insomnia in our PGC MDD sample (R2 = 1.75−3, p = 0.006). Conclusion: Our results reveal that <1% of variance is explained by the variants that cover the two significant p-value thresholds, which is in line with the fact that depression and insomnia are both polygenic disorders. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate genetic overlap between the general population and a depression sample for insomnia, which has important treatment implications, such as leading to novel drug targets in future research efforts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".