Polygenic scores differently predict developmental trajectories of subtypes of social withdrawal in middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Children who consistently withdraw from social situations face increased risk for later socioemotional difficulties. Twin studies indicate that genetic factors account for a substantial share in the persistence of social withdrawal over time. However, the molecular genetic etiology of chronic courses of social wariness and preference for solitude, two dimensions of social withdrawal, remain unexplored. The objectives were 1) to identify high-risk trajectories for social wariness and preference for solitude in the childhood years, and 2) to examine whether the assignment to these high-risk trajectories can be predicted by polygenic scores for mostly adult mental health traits and disorders and by a general polygenic predisposition to these traits. Methods. Teachers evaluated 1133 genotyped children at five occasions (age 6 to 12 years) from two prospective longitudinal studies, the Quebec Newborn Twin Study and the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Developmental trajectories for social wariness and preference for solitude were identified. We tested whether polygenic scores for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, depression, loneliness and subjective well-being, as well as a general mental health genetic risk score derived across these traits were associated with the developmental trajectories. Results. Polygenic scores differently predicted social wariness and preference for solitude. Only the loneliness polygenic score significantly predicted the elevated trajectory for social wariness. By contrast, the general mental health genetic risk score factor was associated with the trajectory depicting high and chronic preference for solitude. Conclusion. Distinct associations were uncovered between the polygenic scores, social wariness, and preference for solitude. These results point to multiple genetic processes underlying the development of social withdrawal, as well as the potential value of preference for solitude as an endophenotype for the later onset and persistence of mental health difficulties in adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".