Genetic and environmental contributions to the relationship between education and anxiety disorders – a twin study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the negative statistical relationship between educational level and risk of anxiety disorders, and to estimate to what extent this relationship may be explained by genes or environmental factors influencing both phenotypes. METHOD: Registry data on educational level for 3339 young adult Norwegian twin pairs and diagnostic data on anxiety disorders for 1385 of these pairs were analysed, specifying structural equations models using MX software. RESULTS: In the best-fitting model, genes accounted for 59% of the variance in education. 18% of the variance was due to environmental factors shared by co-twins, and the remaining 23% due to non-shared environment; 46% of the variance in liability to anxiety disorders was genetic, the remaining variance was due to non-shared environment. A phenotypic polychoric correlation of -0.30 between educational level and 'any anxiety disorder' was estimated to be primarily (83% in the best-fitting model) caused by genes common to the two traits. CONCLUSION: The relationship between low education and risk of anxiety disorders appears to be primarily determined by genetic effect common to educational level and anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".