Child and adolescent conduct disorder substantially shares genetic influences with three socioemotional dispositions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a representative sample of twin children and adolescents, we tested the hypothesis that a substantial proportion of the genetic and environmental influences underlying conduct disorder (CD) are shared with three socioemotional dispositions: Prosociality, Negative Emotionality, and Daring. Caretaker ratings of each dispositional dimension were uniquely associated with a latent CD dimension that included both caretaker- and youth-reports of CD as indicators. Behavior genetic analyses indicated that moderate-to-high additive genetic and moderate nonshared environmental influences underlie all three dispositions and CD, with modest shared environmental influences on Prosociality. Forty percent of the additive genetic influences and all of the nonshared environmental influences on the latent CD dimension were shared in common with the three socioemotional dispositions. The finding that CD shares a substantial proportion of its genetic influences with three distinct socioemotional dispositions suggests new perspectives on the heterogeneous etiology of CD and new approaches to exploring its specific etiological mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".