Novel tools for comparing the architecture of psychopathology between neurogenetic disorders: An application to X- versus Y-chromosome aneuploidy effects in males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric symptoms are typically highly inter-correlated at the group level. Collectively, these correlations define the architecture of psychopathology - informing taxonomic and mechanistic models in psychiatry. However, to date, it remains unclear if this architecture differs between etiologically distinct subgroups, despite the core relevance of this understanding for personalized medicine. Here, we introduce a new analytic pipeline to probe group differences in the psychopathology architecture - demonstrated through the comparison of two distinct neurogenetic disorders. METHODS: = 134 age-matched XY) to characterize the structure of correlations among 53 diverse measures of psychopathology in XXY/KS and XYY syndrome - enabling us to compare the effects of X- versus Y-chromosome dosage on the architecture of psychopathology at multiple, distinctly informative levels. RESULTS: Behavior correlation matrices describe the architecture of psychopathology in each syndrome. A comparison of matrix rows reveals that social problems and externalizing symptoms are most differentially coupled to other aspects of psychopathology in XXY/KS versus XYY. Clustering the difference between matrices captures coordinated group differences in pairwise coupling between measures of psychopathology: XXY/KS shows greater coherence among externalizing, internalizing, and autism-related features, while XYY syndrome shows greater coherence in dissociality and early neurodevelopmental impairment. CONCLUSIONS: These methods offer new insights into X- and Y-chromosome dosage effects on behavior, and our shared code can now be applied to other clinical groups of interest - helping to hone mechanistic models and inform the tailoring of care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".