Correlation between polygenic risk scores of depression and cortical morphology networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cortical morphometry is an intermediate phenotype that is closely related to the genetics and onset of major depressive disorder (MDD), and cortical morphometric networks are considered more relevant to disease mechanisms than brain regions. We sought to investigate changes in cortical morphometric networks in MDD and their relationship with genetic risk in healthy controls. METHODS: -weighted and diffusion tensor imaging. We calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on previous summary statistics from a genome-wide association study of the Chinese Han population. We used a novel method based on Kullback-Leibler divergence to construct the morphometric inverse divergence (MIND) network, and we included the classic morphometric similarity network (MSN) as a complementary approach. Considering the relationship between cortical and white matter networks, we also constructed a streamlined density network. We conducted group comparison and PRS correlation analyses at both the regional and network level. RESULTS: We included 130 healthy controls and 195 patients with MDD. The results indicated enhanced connectivity in the MIND network among patients with MDD and people with high genetic risk, particularly in the somatomotor (SMN) and default mode networks (DMN). We did not observe significant findings in the MSN. The white matter network showed disruption among people with high genetic risk, also primarily in the SMN and DMN. The MIND network outperformed the MSN network in distinguishing MDD status. LIMITATIONS: Our study was cross-sectional and could not explore the causal relationships between cortical morphological changes, white matter connectivity, and disease states. Some patients had received antidepressant treatment, which may have influenced brain morphology and white matter network structure. CONCLUSION: The genetic mechanisms of depression may be related to white matter disintegration, which could also be associated with decoupling of the SMN and DMN. These findings provide new insights into the genetic mechanisms and potential biomarkers of MDD.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".