A multivariate twin study of hippocampal volume, self‐esteem and well‐being in middle‐aged men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-esteem and well-being are important for successful aging, and some evidence suggests that self-esteem and well-being are associated with hippocampal volume, cognition and stress responsivity. Whereas most of this evidence is based on studies on older adults, we investigated self-esteem, well-being and hippocampal volume in 474 male middle-aged twins. Self-esteem was significantly positively correlated with hippocampal volume (0.09, P = 0.03 for left hippocampus, 0.10, P = 0.04 for right). Correlations for well-being were not significant (Ps > 0.05). There were strong phenotypic correlations between self-esteem and well-being (0.72, P < 0.001) and between left and right hippocampal volume (0.72, P < 0.001). In multivariate genetic analyses, a two-factor additive genetic and unique environmental (AE) model with well-being and self-esteem on one factor and left and right hippocampal volumes on the other factor fits the data better than Cholesky, independent pathway or common pathway models. The correlation between the two genetic factors was 0.12 (P = 0.03); the correlation between the environmental factors was 0.09 (P > 0.05). Our results indicate that largely different genetic and environmental factors underlie self-esteem and well-being on one hand and hippocampal volume on the other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".