X-Chromosome-wide association study for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to methodological reasons, the X-chromosome has not been featured in the major genome-wide association studies on Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). To finally address this and better characterize the genetic landscape of AD, we performed an in-depth X-Chromosome-Wide Association Study (XWAS) in 115,841 AD cases or AD proxy cases, including 52,214 clinically-diagnosed AD cases, and 613,671 controls. We considered three approaches to account for the different X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) states in females, i.e. random XCI, skewed XCI, and escape XCI. We did not detect any genome-wide significant signals (P ≤ 5 × 10 −8 ) but identified four X-chromosome-wide significant loci (P ≤ 1.7 × 10 −6 ). Two signals locate in the FRMPD4 and DMD genes, while the two others are more than 300 kb away from the closest protein coding genes NLGN4X and GRIA3 . Overall, this XWAS found no common genetic risk factors for AD on the non-pseudoautosomal region of the X-chromosome, but it identified suggestive signals warranting further investigations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".