MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heritability of P300 amplitude development from adolescence to adulthood

2006· article· en· W2020545038 on OpenAlexaff
Scott R. Carlson, William G. Iacono

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsEndophenotypePsychologyHeritabilityPsychopathologyDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyDizygotic twinsEarly adulthoodYoung adultCognitionNeuroscienceClinical psychologyGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early adulthood is a period of late brain development corresponding to the age of onset for psychopathology associated with P300 amplitude reductions. Although amplitude from a single occasion is heritable, little is known about genetic influences on change during this period. This is the first study of P300 change to combine latent growth and twin models. P300 at Pz was measured up to three times at approximately ages 17, 20, and 23 in monozygotic and dizygotic male twins using a visual task. P300 decreased with age. Correlations indexing the stability of amplitude over time were high (median r=.72) and almost 90% of the stable variance (i.e., the model intercept) was attributable to genetic influences. The rate of decrease was heritable, and the genes influencing intercept may be the same ones influencing change. Finally, intercept was more heritable than amplitude at any single time point. Intercept may be a more useful aid in the search for genes associated with relevant psychopathology than single measures of P300. Over a broader age range growth indices may be useful "developmental" endophenotypes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207