Intergenerational transmission of genetic risk for hyperactivity and inattention. Direct genetic transmission or genetic nurture?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hyperactivity and inattention, the symptoms of ADHD, are marked by high levels of heritability and intergenerational transmission. Two distinct pathways of genetic intergenerational transmission are distinguished: direct genetic transmission when parental genetic variants are passed to the child's genome and genetic nurture when the parental genetic background contributes to the child's outcomes through rearing environment. This study assessed genetic contributions to hyperactivity and inattention in childhood through these transmission pathways. Methods: The sample included 415 families from the Quebec Newborn Twin Study. Twins' hyperactivity and inattention were assessed in early childhood by parents and in primary school by teachers. The polygenic scores for ADHD (ADHD-PGS) and educational attainment (EA-PGS) were computed from twins' and parents' genotypes. A model of intergenerational transmission was developed to estimate (1) the contributions of parents' and children's PGS to the twins' ADHD symptoms and (2) whether these variances were explained by genetic transmission and/or genetic nurture. Results: ADHD-PGS explained up to 1.6% of the variance of hyperactivity and inattention in early childhood and primary school. EA-PGS predicted ADHD symptoms at both ages, explaining up to 1.6% of the variance in early childhood and up to 5.5% in primary school. Genetic transmission was the only significant transmission pathway of both PGS. The genetic nurture channeled through EA-PGS explained up to 3.2% of the variance of inattention in primary school but this association was non-significant. Conclusions: Genetic propensities to ADHD and education predicted ADHD symptoms in childhood, especially in primary school. Its intergenerational transmission was driven primarily by genetic variants passed to the child, rather than by environmentally mediated parental genetic effects. The model developed in this study can be leveraged in future research to investigate genetic transmission and genetic nurture while accounting for parental assortative mating.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".