Genome-wide association study identifies new loci associated with OCD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, four genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have been published, reporting a high single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-heritability of 28% but finding only one significant SNP. A substantial increase in sample size will likely lead to further identification of SNPs, genes, and biological pathways mediating the susceptibility to OCD. We conducted a GWAS meta-analysis with a 2-3-fold increase in case sample size (OCD cases: N = 37,015, controls: N = 948,616) compared to the last OCD GWAS, including six previously published cohorts (OCGAS, IOCDF-GC, IOCDF-GC-trio, NORDiC-nor, NORDiC-swe, and iPSYCH) and unpublished self-report data from 23andMe Inc. We explored the genetic architecture of OCD by conducting gene-based tests, tissue and celltype enrichment analyses, and estimating heritability and genetic correlations with 74 phenotypes. To examine a potential heterogeneity in our data, we conducted multivariable GWASs with MTAG. We found support for 15 independent genome-wide significant loci (14 new) and 79 protein-coding genes. Tissue enrichment analyses implicate multiple cortical regions, the amygdala, and hypothalamus, while cell type analyses yielded 12 cell types linked to OCD (all neurons). The SNP-based heritability of OCD was estimated to be 0.08. Using MTAG we found evidence for specific genetic underpinnings characteristic of different cohort-ascertainment and identified additional significant SNPs. OCD was genetically correlated with 40 disorders or traits-positively with all psychiatric disorders and negatively with BMI, age at first birth and multiple autoimmune diseases. The GWAS meta-analysis identified several biologically informative genes as important contributors to the aetiology of OCD. Overall, we have begun laying the groundwork through which the biology of OCD will be understood and described.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".