Genome-wide analyses identify 30 loci associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects ∼1% of children and adults and is partly caused by genetic factors. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis combining 53,660 OCD cases and 2,044,417 controls and identified 30 independent genome-wide significant loci. Gene-based approaches identified 249 potential effector genes for OCD, with 25 of these classified as the most likely causal candidates, including WDR6, DALRD3, CTNND1 and multiple genes in the MHC region. We estimated that ∼11,500 genetic variants explained 90% of OCD genetic heritability. OCD genetic risk was associated with excitatory neurons in the hippocampus and cortex, along with D1- and D2-type dopamine receptor-containing medium spiny neurons. OCD genetic risk was shared with 65 of 112 additional phenotypes, including all of the psychiatric disorders we examined. In particular, OCD shared genetic risk with anxiety, depression, anorexia nervosa, and Tourette syndrome, and was negatively associated with inflammatory bowel diseases, educational attainment, and body mass index.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".