Polygenic Scores and Onset of Major Mood or Psychotic Disorders Among Offspring of Affected Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Family history is an established risk factor for mental illness. The authors sought to investigate whether polygenic scores (PGSs) can complement family history to improve identification of risk for major mood and psychotic disorders. Methods: Eight cohorts were combined to create a sample of 1,884 participants ages 2–36 years, including 1,339 offspring of parents with mood or psychotic disorders, who were prospectively assessed with diagnostic interviews over an average of 5.1 years. PGSs were constructed for depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, neuroticism, subjective well-being, p factor, and height (as a negative control). Cox regression was used to test associations between PGSs, family history of major mental illness, and onsets of major mood and psychotic disorders. Results: There were 435 onsets of major mood and psychotic disorders across follow-up. PGSs for neuroticism (hazard ratio=1.23, 95% CI=1.12–1.36), schizophrenia (hazard ratio=1.15, 95% CI=1.04–1.26), depression (hazard ratio=1.11, 95% CI=1.01–1.22), ADHD (hazard ratio=1.10, 95% CI=1.00–1.21), subjective well-being (hazard ratio=0.90, 95% CI=0.82–0.99), and p factor (hazard ratio=1.14, 95% CI=1.04–1.26) were associated with onsets. After controlling for family history, neuroticism PGS remained significantly positively associated (hazard ratio=1.19, 95% CI=1.08–1.31) and subjective well-being PGS remained significantly negatively associated (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.81–0.98) with onsets. Conclusions: Neuroticism and subjective well-being PGSs capture risk of major mood and psychotic disorders that is independent of family history, whereas PGSs for psychiatric illness provide limited predictive power when family history is known. Neuroticism and subjective well-being PGSs may complement family history in the early identification of persons at elevated risk.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".