Research Review: A review of the past decade of family and genomic studies on adolescent mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health problems and traits capturing psychopathology are common and often begin during adolescence. Decades of twin studies indicate that genetic factors explain around 50% of individual differences in adolescent psychopathology. In recent years, significant advances, particularly in genomics, have moved this work towards more translational findings. METHODS: This review provides an overview of the past decade of genetically sensitive studies on adolescent development, covering both family and genomic studies in adolescents aged 10-24 years. We focus on five research themes: (1) co-occurrence or comorbidity between psychopathologies, (2) stability and change over time, (3) intergenerational transmission, (4) gene-environment interplay, and (5) psychological treatment outcomes. RESULTS: First, research shows that much of the co-occurrence of psychopathologies in adolescence is explained by genetic factors, with widespread pleiotropic influences on many traits. Second, stability in psychopathology across adolescence is largely explained by persistent genetic influences, whereas change is explained by emerging genetic and environmental influences. Third, contemporary twin-family studies suggest that different co-occurring genetic and environmental mechanisms may account for the intergenerational transmission of psychopathology, with some differences across psychopathologies. Fourth, genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology are correlated with a wide range of environmental exposures. However, the extent to which genetic factors interact with the environment remains unclear, as findings from both twin and genomic studies are inconsistent. Finally, a few studies suggest that genetic factors may play a role in psychological treatment response, but these findings have not yet been replicated. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically sensitive research on adolescent psychopathology has progressed significantly in the past decade, with family and twin findings starting to be replicated at the genomic level. However, important gaps remain in the literature, and we conclude by providing suggestions of research questions that still need to be addressed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".