MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Copy Number Variant Risk Scores Associated With Cognition, Psychopathology, and Brain Structure in Youths in the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort

2022· article· en· W4280523270 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Alexander‐Bloch, Guillaume Huguet, Laura M. Schultz, Nicholas Huffnagle, Sébastien Jacquemont, Jakob Seidlitz, Zohra Saci, Tyler M. Moore, Richard A. I. Bethlehem, Josephine Mollon, Emma Knowles, Armin Raznahan, Alison Merikangas, Barbara H. Chaiyachati, Harshini Raman, J. Eric Schmitt, Ran Barzilay, Monica E. Calkins, Russel T. Shinohara, Theodore D. Satterthwaite, Ruben C. Gur, David C. Glahn, Laura Almasy, Raquel E. Gur, Håkon Håkonarson, Joseph Glessner

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsNeurocognitivePsychopathologyCopy-number variationCohortPsychologyPsychiatryCognitionMedicineClinical psychologyGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Psychiatric and cognitive phenotypes have been associated with a range of specific, rare copy number variants (CNVs). Moreover, IQ is strongly associated with CNV risk scores that model the predicted risk of CNVs across the genome. But the utility of CNV risk scores for psychiatric phenotypes has been sparsely examined. Objective: To determine how CNV risk scores, common genetic variation indexed by polygenic scores (PGSs), and environmental factors combine to associate with cognition and psychopathology in a community sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort is a community-based study examining genetics, psychopathology, neurocognition, and neuroimaging. Participants were recruited through the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia pediatric network. Participants with stable health and fluency in English underwent genotypic and phenotypic characterization from November 5, 2009, through December 30, 2011. Data were analyzed from January 1 through July 30, 2021. Exposures: The study examined (1) CNV risk scores derived from models of burden, predicted intolerance, and gene dosage sensitivity; (2) PGSs from genomewide association studies related to developmental outcomes; and (3) environmental factors, including trauma exposure and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined (1) neurocognition, with the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery; (2) psychopathology, with structured interviews based on the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children; and (3) brain volume, with magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Participants included 9498 youths aged 8 to 21 years; 4906 (51.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 14.2 (3.7) years. After quality control, 18 185 total CNVs greater than 50 kilobases (10 517 deletions and 7668 duplications) were identified in 7101 unrelated participants genotyped on Illumina arrays. In these participants, elevated CNV risk scores were associated with lower overall accuracy on cognitive tests (standardized β = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.10-0.14; P = 7.41 × 10-26); lower accuracy across a range of cognitive subdomains; increased overall psychopathology; increased psychosis-spectrum symptoms; and higher deviation from a normative developmental model of brain volume. Statistical models of developmental outcomes were significantly improved when CNV risk scores were combined with PGSs and environmental factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, elevated CNV risk scores were associated with lower cognitive ability, higher psychopathology including psychosis-spectrum symptoms, and greater deviations from normative magnetic resonance imaging models of brain development. Together, these results represent a step toward synthesizing rare genetic, common genetic, and environmental factors to understand clinically relevant outcomes in youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PsychiatrySame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207