A burden of rare copy number variants in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current genetic research on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) supports contributions to risk specifically from common single nucleotide variants (SNVs), along with rare coding SNVs and small insertion-deletions (indels). The contribution to OCD risk from rare copy number variants (CNVs), however, has not been formally assessed at a similar scale. Here we describe an analysis of rare CNVs called from genotype array data in 2248 deeply phenotyped OCD cases and 3608 unaffected controls from Sweden and Norway. Cases carry an elevated burden of CNVs ≥30 kb in size (OR = 1.12, P = 1.77 × 10−3). The excess rate of these CNVs in cases versus controls was around 0.07 (95% CI 0.02–0.11, P = 2.58 × 10−3). This signal was largely driven by CNVs overlapping protein-coding regions (OR = 1.19, P = 3.08 × 10−4), particularly deletions impacting loss-of-function intolerant genes (pLI >0.995, OR = 4.12, P = 2.54 × 10−5). We did not identify any specific locus where CNV burden was associated with OCD case status at genome-wide significance, but we noted non-random recurrence of CNV deletions in cases (permutation P = 2.60 × 10−3). In cases where sufficient clinical data were available (n = 1612) we found that carriers of neurodevelopmental duplications were more likely to have comorbid autism (P < 0.001), and that carriers of deletions overlapping neurodevelopmental genes had lower treatment response (P = 0.02). The results demonstrate a contribution of rare CNVs to OCD risk, and suggest that studies of rare coding variation in OCD would have increased power to identify risk genes if this class of variation were incorporated into formal tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".