A high-resolution PheWAS approach to alcohol-related polygenic risk scores reveals mechanistic influences of alcohol reinforcing value and drinking motives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study uses a high-resolution phenome-wide approach to evaluate the motivational mechanisms of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) that have been robustly associated with coarse alcohol phenotypes in large-scale studies. METHODS: In a community-based sample of 1534 Europeans, we examined genome-wide PRSs for the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), drinks per week, alcohol use disorder (AUD), problematic alcohol use (PAU), and general addiction, in relation to 42 curated phenotypes. The curated phenotypes were in seven categories: alcohol consumption, alcohol reinforcing value, drinking motives, other addictive behaviors, commonly comorbid psychiatric syndromes, impulsivity, and personality traits. RESULTS: The PRS for each alcohol phenotype was validated via its within-sample association with the corresponding phenotype (adjusted R2s = 0.35-1.68%, Ps = 0.012-3.6 × 10-7) with the exception of AUD. All PRSs were positively associated with alcohol reinforcing value and drinking motives, with the strongest effects from AUDIT-consumption (adjusted R2s = 0.45-1.33%, Ps = 0.006-3.6 × 10-5) and drinks per week PRSs (adjusted R2s = 0.52-2.28%, Ps = 0.004-6.6 × 10-9). Furthermore, the PAU and drinks per week PRSs were positively associated with adverse childhood experiences (adjusted R2s = 0.6-0.7%, Ps = 0.0001-4.8 × 10-4). CONCLUSIONS: These results implicate alcohol reinforcing value and drinking motives as genetically-influenced mechanisms using PRSs for the first time. The findings also highlight the value of dissecting genetic influence on alcohol involvement through diverse phenotypic risk pathways but also the need for future studies with both phenotypic richness and larger samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".