Polygenic risk for schizophrenia and the language network: Putative compensatory reorganization in unaffected siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language-related symptoms, such as disorganized, impoverished speech and communicative behaviors, are one of the core features of schizophrenia. These features most strongly correlate with cognitive deficits and polygenic risk among various symptom dimensions of schizophrenia. Nevertheless, unaffected siblings with genetic high-risk fail to show consistent deficits in language network (LN), indicating that either (1) polygenic risk has no notable effect on LN and/or (2) siblings show compensatory changes in opposing direction to patients. To answer this question, we related polygenic risk scores (PRS) to the region-level, tract-level, and systems-level structure (cortical thickness and fiber connectivity) of LN in 182 patients, 48 unaffected siblings and 135 healthy controls. We also studied the relationships between symptoms, language-related cognition, social functioning and LN structure. We observed a significantly lower thickness in LN (especially the Broca's, Wernicke's area and their right homologues) in patients. Siblings had a distinctly higher thickness in parts of the LN and a more pronounced small-world-like structural integration within the LN. Patients with reduced LN thickness had higher PRS, more disorganization and impoverished speech with lower language-related cognition and social functioning. We conclude that the genetic susceptibility and putative compensatory changes for schizophrenia operate, in part, via key regions in the Language Network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".