Genetic and phenotypic similarity across major psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and quantitative assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is widespread overlap across major psychiatric disorders, and this is the case at different levels of observations, from genetic variants to brain structures and function and to symptoms. However, it remains unknown to what extent these commonalities at different levels of observation map onto each other. Here, we systematically review and compare the degree of similarity between psychiatric disorders at all available levels of observation. We searched PubMed and EMBASE between January 1, 2009 and September 8, 2022. We included original studies comparing at least four of the following five diagnostic groups: Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, with measures of similarities between all disorder pairs. Data extraction and synthesis were performed by two independent researchers, following the PRISMA guidelines. As main outcome measure, we assessed the Pearson correlation measuring the degree of similarity across disorders pairs between studies and biological levels of observation. We identified 2975 studies, of which 28 were eligible for analysis, featuring similarity measures based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms, gene-based analyses, gene expression, structural and functional connectivity neuroimaging measures. The majority of correlations (88.6%) across disorders between studies, within and between levels of observation, were positive. To identify a consensus ranking of similarities between disorders, we performed a principal component analysis. Its first dimension explained 51.4% (95% CI: 43.2, 65.4) of the variance in disorder similarities across studies and levels of observation. Based on levels of genetic correlation, we estimated the probability of another psychiatric diagnosis in first-degree relatives and showed that they were systematically lower than those observed in population studies. Our findings highlight that genetic and brain factors may underlie a large proportion, but not all of the diagnostic overlaps observed in the clinic.
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 | 0.025 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".