Genetic and environmental influences on behavioral disinhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comorbidity among childhood disruptive behavioral disorders is commonly reported in both epidemiologic and clinical studies. These problems are also associated with early substance use and other markers of behavioral disinhibition. Previous twin research has suggested that much of the covariation between antisocial behavior and alcohol dependence is due to common genetic influences. Similar results have been reported for conduct problems and hyperactivity. For the present study, an adolescent sample consisting of 172 MZ and 162 DZ twin pairs, recruited through the Colorado Twin Registry and the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study were assessed using standardized psychiatric interviews and personality assessments. DSM-IV symptom counts for conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, along with a measure of substance experimentation and novelty seeking, were used as indices of a latent behavioral disinhibition trait. A confirmatory factor model fit to individual-level data showed a strong common factor accounting for 16-42% of the observed variance in each measure. A common pathway model evaluating the genetic and environmental architecture of the latent phenotype suggested that behavioral disinhibition is highly heritable (a(2) = 0.84), and is not influenced significantly by shared environmental factors. A residual correlation between conduct disorder and substance experimentation was explained by shared environmental effects, and a residual correlation between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and novelty seeking was accounted for by genetic dominance. These results suggest that a variety of adolescent problem behaviors may share a common underlying genetic risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".