MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132387215 · doi:10.1521/pedi.15.1.33.18645

Heritability of Personality Disorders in Childhood: A Preliminary Investigation

2001· article· en· W2132387215 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick L. Coolidge, Linda L. Thede, Kerry L. Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHeritabilityPersonality disordersDevelopmental psychologyPersonalityClinical psychologyPsychoanalysisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heritability of personality disorder features was investigated in 112 child (ages 4-15 years) twin pairs (70 monozygotic and 42 dizygotic pairs). Parents assessed personality disorder features using the Coolidge Personality and Neuropsychological Inventory for Children (CPNI; Coolidge, 1998) that measures 12 personality disorders according to the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Structural equation model-fitting methods indicated that the median heritability coefficient for the 12 scales was .75 (ranging from .81 for the Dependent and Schizotypal Personality Disorder scales to .50 for the Paranoid and Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder scales). These results suggest that childhood personality disorders have a substantial genetic component and that they are similar to heritability estimates of personality disorder traits in adults and counter hypotheses that only temperaments and higher-order personality disorder traits have significant genetic components (Paris, 1997).

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations141
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207