Genetic influences on brain and cognitive health and their interactions with cardiovascular conditions and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Approximately 40% of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by modifiable risk factors related to lifestyle and environment. These risk factors, such as depression and vascular disease, do not affect all individuals in the same way, likely due to inter-individual differences in genetics. However, the precise nature of how genetic risk profiles interact with modifiable risk factors to affect brain health is poorly understood. Here we combine multiple data resources, including genotyping and postmortem gene expression, to map the genetic landscape of brain structure and identify 367 loci associated with cortical thickness and 13 loci associated with white matter hyperintensities (P < 5×10−8), with several loci also showing a significant association with cognitive function. We show that among 220 unique genetic loci associated with cortical thickness in our genome-wide association studies (GWAS), 95 also showed evidence of interaction with depression or cardiovascular conditions. Polygenic risk scores based on our GWAS of inferior frontal thickness also interacted with hypertension in predicting executive function in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. These findings advance our understanding of the genetic underpinning of brain structure and show that genetic risk for brain and cognitive health is in part moderated by treatable mid-life factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".