MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417151701 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.01.25341089

Sex-Specific Genetic Architecture and Comorbidities of Alcohol Use Behaviors

2025· preprint· en· W4417151701 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Vilar‐Ribó, Mariela Jennings, Aisha Sallah, Maria Niarchou, Zeal Jinwala, Hayley H. A. Thorpe, Sevim B. Bianchi, J. Wayne Meredith, Kyra Feuer, Lydia Rader, Natasia S. Courchesne‐Krak, Jared V. Balbona, Sarah L. Elson, Pierre Fontanillas, Emma C. Johnson, Lea K. Davis, Alexander S. Hatoum, Travis T. Mallard, Daniel E. Gustavson, Hang Zhou, Abraham A. Palmer, Jeanne E. Savage, Rachel L. Kember, Sandra Sanchez‐Roige

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of Pennsylvania Health SystemGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AlliancePerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaRegeneron PharmaceuticalsUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsGenetic architectureHeritabilityGenetic correlationPsychopathologyGenetic associationAssociation (psychology)Genome-wide association studyCorrelationAlcohol dependence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Sex differences in alcohol use behaviors are well-established: males typically engage in heavier and more frequent drinking and exhibit more externalizing behaviors (e.g., other substance use), while females often transition to dependence more rapidly and present more internalizing psychopathology (e.g., depression). The biological mechanisms underpinning these differences are relatively unknown. Methods In this study, we investigated the sex-differentiated genetic architecture of 11 alcohol use phenotypes pertaining to frequency, quantity and problematic use by leveraging sex-stratified genome-wide association studies (Ns 40,335 to 613,148). Specifically, we compared SNP-based heritability ( h 2 SNP ) estimates, individual genetic locus effects, genetic correlations ( r g ) across alcohol phenotypes and with comorbid traits from independent GWAS, and polygenic score ( PGS ) associations with medical outcomes from clinical populations. Results h 2 SNP was broadly similar between sexes, except for higher estimates in males for beer quantity and problematic alcohol use ( PAU ). We identified four sex-differentiated top loci ( p sex-diff < 5 x 10 -8 ), including a female-specific association in IZUMO1 for drinking frequency and quantity , and three male-specific associations in ADH1B , KLB and FTO for beer quantity and/or PAU . Between-sex genetic correlations ranged from 0.68±0.07 to 0.89±0.04, these estimates were lowest for quantity measures and varied by beverage type, indicating partially distinct polygenic architecture. In males, we identified stronger positive genetic correlations with several externalizing traits (e.g., general addiction) compared to females. In females, we identified a specific positive genetic correlation with a single internalizing trait, self-harm. PGS analyses revealed sex-specific medical associations (e.g., bone/musculoskeletal conditions in females; hepatic/respiratory/infectious sequelae in males) that were obscured in sex-combined analyses; however, sex-specific PGS did not outperform combined-sex PGS for predicting alcohol use disorder diagnosis. Conclusions Sex-aware analyses of alcohol use behaviors can improve our understanding of the genetic etiology of alcohol use and related health outcomes, and future studies should consider cultural variation (e.g., drinking attitudes, social norms) in the relationship between behavior and genetics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→