Author Correction: GWAS of multiple neuropathology endophenotypes identifies new risk loci and provides insights into the genetic risk of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After publication of the article, several collaborators helpfully pointed out issues with genetic variant ID harmonization and effect allele coding errors, each affecting a subset of variants used in our study. The authors regret these errors and have updated the manuscript and summary statistics to correct them. Most results reported in the manuscript were not materially affected by this; however, the lead variant in the reported PIK3R5 locus associated with Braak neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) stage no longer reached genome-wide significance after correction (now P = 1.3 × 10 –7 ). Furthermore, the known Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias (ADRD) loci CELF1/SPI1 (Braak NFT stage and CERAD score) and TMEM106B (Braak NFT stage) now reach the FDR significance threshold for association with at least one additional neuropathology endophenotype (NPE). Other results, namely P values, effect sizes and colocalization probabilities have minor changes and have been corrected throughout. Several minor typos are now also corrected. We also corrected all tables and figures based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. The Supplementary Information accompanying this amendment shows a detailed list of all updates. All changes discussed are reflected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".