Gene–environment interplay in the etiology of psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia and other types of psychosis incur suffering, high health care costs and loss of human potential, due to the combination of early onset and poor response to treatment. Our ability to prevent or cure psychosis depends on knowledge of causal mechanisms. Molecular genetic studies show that thousands of common and rare variants contribute to the genetic risk for psychosis. Epidemiological studies have identified many environmental factors associated with increased risk of psychosis. However, no single genetic or environmental factor is sufficient to cause psychosis on its own. The risk of developing psychosis increases with the accumulation of many genetic risk variants and exposures to multiple adverse environmental factors. Additionally, the impact of environmental exposures likely depends on genetic factors, through gene-environment interactions. Only a few specific gene-environment combinations that lead to increased risk of psychosis have been identified to date. An example of replicable gene-environment interaction is a common polymorphism in the AKT1 gene that makes its carriers sensitive to developing psychosis with regular cannabis use. A synthesis of results from twin studies, molecular genetics, and epidemiological research outlines the many genetic and environmental factors contributing to psychosis. The interplay between these factors needs to be considered to draw a complete picture of etiology. To reach a more complete explanation of psychosis that can inform preventive strategies, future research should focus on longitudinal assessments of multiple environmental exposures within large, genotyped cohorts beginning early in life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".