The gene–environmental architecture of the development of adolescent substance use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using a longitudinal twin design and a latent growth curve/autoregressive approach, this study examined the genetic-environmental architecture of substance use across adolescence. METHODS: Self-reports of substance use (i.e. alcohol, marijuana) were collected at ages 13, 14, 15, and 17 years from 476 twin pairs (475 boys, 477 girls) living in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Substance use increased linearly across the adolescent years. RESULTS: ACE modeling revealed that genetic, as well as shared and non-shared environmental factors explained the overall level of substance use and that these same factors also partly accounted for growth in substance use from age 13 to 17. Additional genetic factors predicted the growth in substance use. Finally, autoregressive effects revealed age-specific non-shared environmental influences and, to a lesser degree, age-specific genetic influences, which together accounted for the stability of substance use across adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: The results support and expand the notion that genetic and environmental influences on substance use during adolescence are both developmentally stable and developmentally dynamic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".