Using Sibling Designs to Understand Neurodevelopmental Disorders: From Genes and Environments to Prevention Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodevelopmental disorders represent a broad class of childhood neurological conditions that have a significant bearing on the wellbeing of children, families, and communities. In this review, we draw on evidence from two common and widely studied neurodevelopmental disorders-autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-to demonstrate the utility of genetically informed sibling designs in uncovering the nature and pathogenesis of these conditions. Specifically, we examine how twin, recurrence risk, and infant prospective tracking studies have contributed to our understanding of genetic and environmental liabilities towards neurodevelopmental morbidity through their impact on neurocognitive processes and structural/functional neuroanatomy. It is suggested that the siblings of children with ASD and ADHD are at risk not only of clinically elevated problems in these areas, but also of subthreshold symptoms and/or subtle impairments in various neurocognitive skills and other domains of psychosocial health. Finally, we close with a discussion on the practical relevance of sibling designs and how these might be used in the service of early screening, prevention, and intervention efforts that aim to alleviate the negative downstream consequences associated with disorders of neurodevelopment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".