Depression symptom-specific genetic associations in clinically diagnosed and proxy case Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Depression is a risk factor for the later development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but evidence for the genetic relationship is mixed. Assessing depression symptom-specific genetic associations may better clarify this relationship. To address this, we conducted genome-wide meta-analysis (a genome-wide association study, GWAS) of the nine depression symptom items, plus their sum score, on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (GWAS-equivalent N: 224,535–308,421) using data from UK Biobank, the GLAD study and PROTECT, identifying 37 genomic risk loci. Using six AD GWASs with varying proportions of clinical and proxy (family history) case ascertainment, we identified 20 significant genetic correlations with depression/depression symptoms. However, only one of these was identified with a clinical AD GWAS. Local genetic correlations were detected in 14 regions. No statistical colocalization was identified in these regions. However, the region of the transmembrane protein 106B gene (TMEM106B) showed colocalization between multiple depression phenotypes and both clinical-only and clinical + proxy AD. Mendelian randomization and polygenic risk score analyses did not yield significant results after multiple testing correction in either direction. Our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of depression/depression symptoms on AD and suggest that previous evidence of genetic overlap between depression and AD may be driven by the inclusion of family history-based proxy cases/controls. However, colocalization at TMEM106B warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".