Schizophrenia Polygenic Risk and Experiences of Childhood Adversity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Schizophrenia has been robustly associated with multiple genetic and environmental risk factors. Childhood adversity is one of the most widely replicated environmental risk factors for schizophrenia, but it is unclear if schizophrenia genetic risk alleles contribute to this association. STUDY DESIGN: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the evidence for gene-environment correlation (genes influence likelihood of environmental exposure) between schizophrenia polygenic risk score (PRS) and reported childhood adversity. We also assessed the evidence for a gene-environment interaction (genes influence sensitivity to environmental exposure) in relation to the outcome of schizophrenia and/or psychosis. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020182812). Following PRISMA guidelines, a search for relevant literature was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until February 2022. All studies that examined the association between schizophrenia PRS and childhood adversity were included. STUDY RESULTS: Seventeen of 650 identified studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed against the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality. The meta-analysis found evidence for gene-environment correlation between schizophrenia PRS and childhood adversity (r = .02; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.03; P = .001), but the effect was small and therefore likely to explain only a small proportion of the association between childhood adversity and psychosis. The 4 studies that investigated a gene-environment interaction between schizophrenia PRS and childhood adversity in increasing risk of psychosis reported inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a gene-environment correlation could explain a small proportion of the relationship between reported childhood adversity and psychosis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".