Effects of gene dosage on cognitive ability: A function-based association study across brain and non-brain processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copy-number variants (CNVs) that increase the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders also affect cognitive ability. However, such CNVs remain challenging to study due to their scarcity, limiting our understanding of gene-dosage-sensitive biological processes linked to cognitive ability. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 258,292 individuals, which identified-for the first time-a duplication at 2q12.3 associated with higher cognitive performance. We developed a functional-burden analysis, which tested the association between cognition and CNVs disrupting 6,502 gene sets biologically defined across tissues, cell types, and ontologies. Among those, 864 gene sets were associated with cognition, and effect sizes of deletion and duplication were negatively correlated. The latter suggested that functions across all biological processes were sensitive to either deletions (e.g., subcortical regions, postsynaptic) or duplications (e.g., cerebral cortex, presynaptic). Associations between non-brain tissues and cognition were driven partly by constrained genes, which may shed light on medical comorbidities in neurodevelopmental disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".