A polygenic resilience score moderates the genetic risk for schizophrenia: Replication in 18,090 cases and 28,114 controls from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying heritable factors that moderate the genetic risk for schizophrenia (SCZ) could help clarify why some individuals remain unaffected despite having relatively high genetic liability. Previously, we developed a framework to mine genome‐wide association (GWAS) data for common genetic variants that protect high‐risk unaffected individuals from SCZ, leading to derivation of the first‐ever “polygenic resilience score” for SCZ (resilient controls n = 3786; polygenic risk score‐matched SCZ cases n = 18,619). Here, we performed a replication study to verify the moderating effect of our polygenic resilience score on SCZ risk (OR = 1.09, p = 4.03 × 10−5) using newly released GWAS data from 23 independent case–control studies collated by the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) (resilient controls n = 2821; polygenic risk score‐matched SCZ cases n = 5150). Additionally, we sought to optimize our polygenic resilience‐scoring formula to improve subsequent modeling of resilience to SCZ and other complex disorders. We found significant replication of the polygenic resilience score, and found that strict pruning of SNPs based on linkage disequilibrium to known risk SNPs and their linked loci optimizes the performance of the polygenic resilience score.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".