Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29562078›Full record

ArticleJAMA psychiatry2018

Measuring and Estimating the Effect Sizes of Copy Number Variants on General Intelligence in Community-Based Samples.

Guillaume Huguet, Catherine Schramm, Elise Douard, Lai Jiang, Aurélie Labbe, Frédérique Tihy, Géraldine Mathonnet, Sonia Nizard, Emmanuelle Lemyre, Alexandre Mathieu and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Population Neuroscience: Principles and Advances.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Guillaume HuguetDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Catherine SchrammDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Elise DouardDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lai JiangLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Aurélie LabbeDépartement de Sciences de la Décision, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Frédérique TihyDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Géraldine MathonnetDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sonia NizardDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Emmanuelle LemyreDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alexandre MathieuDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Jean-Baptiste PolineDepartment of Psychology, Berkeley University, Berkeley, California.
Eva LothInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Roberto ToroDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Gunter SchumannInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Patricia ConrodDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Zdenka PausovaThe Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Celia GreenwoodLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Tomas PausRotman Research Institute, Baycrest, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas BourgeronDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Sébastien JacquemontDepartment of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
IMAGEN Consortium

Funding

CIHRWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance;: Copy number variants (CNVs) classified as pathogenic are identified in 10% to 15% of patients referred for neurodevelopmental disorders. However, their effect sizes on cognitive traits measured as a continuum remain mostly unknown because most of them are too rare to be studied individually using association studies. Objective: To measure and estimate the effect sizes of recurrent and nonrecurrent CNVs on IQ. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study identified all CNVs that were 50 kilobases (kb) or larger in 2 general population cohorts (the IMAGEN project and the Saguenay Youth Study) with measures of IQ. Linear regressions, including functional annotations of genes included in CNVs, were used to identify features to explain their association with IQ. Validation was performed using intraclass correlation that compared IQ estimated by the model with empirical data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance IQ (PIQ), verbal IQ (VIQ), and frequency of de novo CNV events. Results: The study included 2090 European adolescents from the IMAGEN study and 1983 children and parents from the Saguenay Youth Study. Of these, genotyping was performed on 1804 individuals from IMAGEN and 977 adolescents, 445 mothers, and 448 fathers (484 families) from the Saguenay Youth Study. We observed 4928 autosomal CNVs larger than 50 kb across both cohorts. For rare deletions, size, number of genes, and exons affect IQ, and each deleted gene is associated with a mean (SE) decrease in PIQ of 0.67 (0.19) points (P = 6 × 10-4); this is not so for rare duplications and frequent CNVs. Among 10 functional annotations, haploinsufficiency scores best explain the association of any deletions with PIQ with a mean (SE) decrease of 2.74 (0.68) points per unit of the probability of being loss-of-function intolerant (P = 8 × 10-5). Results are consistent across cohorts and unaffected by sensitivity analyses removing pathogenic CNVs. There is a 0.75 concordance (95% CI, 0.39-0.91) between the effect size on IQ estimated by our model and IQ loss calculated in previous studies of 15 recurrent CNVs. There is a close association between effect size on IQ and the frequency at which deletions occur de novo (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.87; P = 2.7 × 10-88). There is a 0.76 concordance (95% CI, 0.41-0.91) between de novo frequency estimated by the model and calculated using data from the DECIPHER database. Conclusions and Relevance: Models trained on nonpathogenic deletions in the general population reliably estimate the effect size of pathogenic deletions and suggest omnigenic associations of haploinsufficiency with IQ. This represents a new framework to study variants too rare to perform individual association studies and can help estimate the cognitive effect of undocumented deletions in the neurodevelopmental clinic.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChromosome AberrationsCohort StudiesDNA Copy Number VariationsEuropeExonsFemaleGene DeletionGenetic Carrier ScreeningGenotypeHaploinsufficiencyHumansIntelligenceLoss of Function MutationMale

Identifiers

PMID29562078
PMCPMC5875373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.