A cross ancestry genetic study of psychiatric disorders from India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome-wide association studies across diverse populations may help validate and confirm genetic contributions to risk of disease. We estimated the extent of population stratification as well as the predictive accuracy of polygenic scores (PGS) derived from European samples to a data set from India. We analysed 2685 samples from two data sets, a population neurodevelopmental study (cVEDA) and a hospital-based sample of bipolar affective disorder (BD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Genotyping was conducted using Illumina’s Global Screening Array. Population structure was examined with principal component analysis (PCA), uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP), support vector machine (SVM) ancestry predictions, and admixture analysis. PGS were calculated from the largest available European discovery GWAS summary statistics for BD, OCD, and externalizing traits using two Bayesian methods that incorporate local linkage disequilibrium structures (PGS-CS-auto) and functional genomic annotations (SBayesRC). Our analyses reveal global and continental PCA overlap with other South Asian populations. Admixture analysis revealed a north-south genetic axis within India ( F ST 1.6%). The UMAP partially reconstructed the contours of the Indian subcontinent. The Bayesian PGS analyses indicates moderate-to-high predictive power for BD. This was despite the cross-ancestry bias of the discovery GWAS dataset, with the currently available data. However, accuracy for OCD and externalizing traits was much lower. The predictive accuracy was perhaps influenced by the sample size of the discovery GWAS and phenotypic heterogeneity across the syndromes and traits studied. Our study results highlight the accuracy and generalizability of newer PGS models across ancestries. Further research, across diverse populations, would help understand causal mechanisms that contribute to psychiatric syndromes and traits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".