Gene–Environment Interaction and Behavioral Disorders: A Developmental Perspective Based on Endophenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been observed that 'No aspect of human behavioral genetics has caused more confusion and generated more obscurantism than the analysis and interpretation of various types of non-additivity and non-independence of gene and environmental action and interaction' (Eaves LJ et al 1977 Br J Math Stat Psychol 30:1-42). On the other hand, a bulk of newly published studies appear to speak in favour of common and frequent interplay--and possibly interaction--between identified genetic polymorphisms and specified environmental variables in shaping behavior and behavioral disorders. Considerable interest has arisen from the introduction of putative functional 'endophenotypes' which would represent a more proximate biological link to genes, as well as an obligatory intermediate of behavior. While explicit criteria to identify valid endophenotypes have been offered, a number of new 'alternative phenotypes' are now being proposed as possible 'endophenotypes' for behavioral and psychiatric genetics research, sometimes with less than optimal stringency. Nonetheless, we suggest that some endophenotypes can be helpful in investigating several instances of gene-environment interactions and be employed as additional tools to reduce the risk for spurious results in this controversial area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".