Genetic structure of major depression symptoms across clinical and community cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder allow for heterogeneous symptom profiles but genetic analysis of major depressive symptoms has the potential to identify clinical and aetiological subtypes. There are several challenges to integrating symptom data from genetically-informative cohorts, such as sample size differences between clinical and community cohorts and various patterns of missing data. We conducted genome-wide association studies of major depressive symptoms in three clinical cohorts that were enriched for affected participants (Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Australian Genetics of Depression Study, Generation Scotland) and three community cohorts (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, Estonian Biobank, and UK Biobank). We fit a series of confirmatory factor models with factors that accounted for how symptom data was sampled and then compared alternative models with different symptom factors. The best fitting model had a distinct factor for Appetite/Weight symptoms and an additional measurement factor that accounted for missing data patterns in the community cohorts (use of Depression and Anhedonia as gating symptoms). The results show the importance of assessing the directionality of symptoms (such as hypersomnia versus insomnia) and of accounting for study and measurement design when meta-analysing genetic association data.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".