Distinguishing vulnerability and resilience to posttraumatic stress disorder evaluating traumatic experiences, genetic risk and electronic health records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What distinguishes vulnerability and resilience to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains unclear. Levering traumatic experiences reporting, genetic data, and electronic health records (EHR), we investigated and predicted the clinical comorbidities (co-phenome) of PTSD vulnerability and resilience in the UK Biobank (UKB) and All of Us Research Program (AoU), respectively. In 60,354 trauma-exposed UKB participants, we defined PTSD vulnerability and resilience considering PTSD symptoms, trauma burden, and polygenic risk scores. EHR-based phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) were conducted to dissect the co-phenomes of PTSD vulnerability and resilience. Significant diagnostic endpoints were applied as weights, yielding a phenotypic risk score (PheRS) to conduct PheWAS of PTSD vulnerability and resilience PheRS in up to 95,761 AoU participants. EHR-based PheWAS revealed three significant phenotypes positively associated with PTSD vulnerability (top association "Sleep disorders") and five outcomes inversely associated with PTSD resilience (top association "Irritable Bowel Syndrome"). In the AoU cohort, PheRS analysis showed a partial inverse relationship between vulnerability and resilience with distinct comorbid associations. While PheRSvulnerability associations were linked to multiple phenotypes, PheRSresilience showed inverse relationships with eye conditions. Our study unveils phenotypic differences in PTSD vulnerability and resilience, highlighting that these concepts are not simply the absence and presence of PTSD.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".