The genetics of a “femaleness/maleness” score in cardiometabolic traits in the UK biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently devised continuous "sex-scores" that sum up multiple quantitative traits, weighted by their respective sex-difference effect sizes, as an approach to estimating polyphenotypic "maleness/femaleness" within each binary sex. To identify the genetic architecture underlying these sex-scores, we conducted sex-specific genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in the UK Biobank cohort (females: n = 161,906; males: n = 141,980). As a control, we also conducted GWASs of sex-specific "sum-scores", simply aggregating the same traits, without weighting by sex differences. Among GWAS-identified genes, while sum-score genes were enriched for genes differentially expressed in the liver in both sexes, sex-score genes were enriched for genes differentially expressed in the cervix and across brain tissues, particularly for females. We then considered single nucleotide polymorphisms with significantly different effects (sdSNPs) between the sexes for sex-scores and sum-scores, mapping to male-dominant and female-dominant genes. Here, we identified brain-related enrichment for sex-scores, especially for male-dominant genes; these findings were present but weaker for sum-scores. Genetic correlation analyses of sex-biased diseases indicated that both sex-scores and sum-scores were associated with cardiometabolic, immune, and psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".