Personality disorder traits, family environment, and alcohol misuse: a multivariate behavioural genetic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study seeks to estimate the extent to which a common genetic and environmental basis is shared between (i) traits delineating specific aspects of antisocial personality and alcohol misuse, and (ii) childhood family environments, traits delineating broad domains of personality pathology and alcohol misuse. DESIGN: Postal survey data were collected from monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs. SETTING: Twin pairs were recruited from Vancouver, British Columbia and London, Ontario, Canada using newspaper advertisements, media stories and twin clubs. PARTICIPANTS: Data obtained from 324 monozygotic and 335 dizygotic twin pairs were used to estimate the extent to which traits delineating specific antisocial personality traits and alcohol misuse shared a common genetic and environmental aetiology. Data from 81 monozygotic and 74 dizygotic twin pairs were used to estimate the degree to which traits delineating personality pathology, childhood family environment and alcohol misuse shared a common aetiology. MEASUREMENTS: Current alcohol misuse and personality pathology were measured using scales contained in the self-report Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology. Perceptions of childhood family environment were measured using the self-report Family Environment Scale. FINDINGS: Multivariate genetic analyses showed that a subset of traits delineating components of antisocial personality (i.e. grandiosity, attention-seeking, failure to adopt social norms, interpersonal violence and juvenile antisocial behaviours) are influenced by genetic factors in common to alcohol misuse. Genetically based perceptions of childhood family environment had little relationship with alcohol misuse. CONCLUSIONS: Heritable personality factors that influence the perception of childhood family environment play only a small role in the liability to alcohol misuse. Instead, liability to alcohol misuse is related to genetic factors common a specific subset of antisocial personality traits describing conduct problems, narcissistic and stimulus-seeking behaviour.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".