MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263949474 · doi:10.1111/jora.12254

Contagion of Anxiety Symptoms Among Adolescent Siblings: A Twin Study

2016· article· en· W2263949474 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Serra Poirier, Mara Brendgen, Frank Vitaro, Ginette Dionne, Michel Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyZygositySiblingDizygotic twinsDevelopmental psychologySibling relationshipClinical psychologyDizygotic twinAssociation (psychology)Monozygotic twinSocial anxietyTwin studyPsychiatryMedicineHeritability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined whether social contagion of anxiety symptoms is present between siblings during early adolescence and whether this process is moderated by sex, relationship quality, and zygosity. Based on 634 monozygotic and dizygotic twins (336 females) assessed in Grades 6 and 7, anxiety symptoms and sibling relationship quality were measured with self-report questionnaires. The predictive association of the co-twin's level of anxiety with adolescents' own increased anxiety 1 year later was only observed in same-sex twin dyads (monozygotic and dizygotic) and was higher for those who perceived a higher level of relationship quality with their co-twin. Raising awareness of a possible sibling contagion of anxiety may be useful for preventing the development of anxiety symptoms in youth.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207