MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W13748915 · doi:10.1177/070674371305800201

The Changing Understanding of the Genetic and Environmental Causes of Mental Illness

2013· editorial· en· W13748915 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Rudolf Uher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMental illnessNature versus nurturePsychosocialCausationPsychologyPsychiatryPsychological interventionMental healthDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abbreviations5-HTT serotonin transporterMAOA monoamine oxidase APTSD posttraumatic stress disorderPsychiatrists have always been trying to understand the reasons why some people become mentally ill while others remain well. In the 20th century, the thinking about the causes of mental health and illness crystallized into the nature versus nurture debate, with the genetic causes (nature) seen as independent and separate from the psychosocial causes (nurture). This divided thinking led to damaging excesses on both sides. The demonstration of genetic contribution to mental illness was interpreted as deterministic causation that was stigmatizing and left little room for preventive or curative interventions short of extreme measures, such as birth control. Conversely, strictly psychosocial interpretations of mental illness led to parent blaming and obscure therapies leading patients to search for nonexistent traumata. In the last decades of the 20th century, findings of quantitative genetics converged to the understanding that genetic and environmental effects are unlikely to be independent of each other. However, it was not until the first decade of the 21st century that the reports of interactions between specific genetic variants and environmental exposures had significant impact on the professional and public understanding of mental illness.The reports that functional polymorphisms in several neuromediator-related genes do not directly cause mental illness but rather sensitize their carriers to the pathogenic effects of environmental exposures brought a new way of thinking about mental illness. A variant in the MAOA gene was found to make its carriers vulnerable to the long-term effects of childhood maltreatment on developing conduct problems and antisocial behaviours.' A variant in the 5-HTT gene sensitizes its carriers to the opposing effects of adverse and supportive environments in the development of depression.2 Variants in several glucocorticoid-related genes may make people sensitive to developing PTSD and other problems after a traumatic event.3 These findings suggest an intuitively plausible mechanism where biology interplays with the surroundings to mould the person's mental processes into healthy or disordered states. It agrees with the observations that some people are resilient to adversity and others are sensitive. Psychiatrists across the world have found this helpful in communicating with patients: nature is no longer deterministic but simply means that different people may need different approaches and each one may have a potential to thrive in his or her niche. Nevertheless, the numerous reports on gene-environment interactions have also proven puzzling. The existence of specific gene-environment interactions has been contested and subjected to complex arguments on issues, such as the statistical nature of interaction, which most psychiatrists find hard to understand.The 2 In Reviews in this issue4,5 provide fresh updates on findings in gene-environment interactions in anxiety and mood disorders. They also exemplify the current debate surrounding the issue of gene-environment interactions. While Dr Marco Battaglia4 probes and questions the nature of causal interactions, Dr Torsten Klengel and Dr Elisabeth B Binder5 assume an affirmative answer to the existence of gene-environment interactions and expound on their meaning and mechanisms. What comes across in both reviews is that the value of gene-environment interactions comes down to whether they are reliably present across populations, that is, whether they replicate.Regarding replication, the various interactions fared differently. The very first reported interaction between MAOA gene and childhood maltreatment in the development of antisocial behaviour was followed by numerous replications, and its validity can hardly be disputed.6,7 Interactions between variants in the glucocorticoid-related FK506 binding protein 5 and corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor 1 genes and environmental adversity also appear promising with initial replications. …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→