MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415546569 · doi:10.1177/27000710251377954

Cohort Profiles: Personality Measurements at the Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu

2025· article· en· W4415546569 on OpenAlexaff
Kadri Arumäe, Mariliis Vaht, Anu Realo, Liisi Ausmees, Jüri Allïk, S. Henry, Mairo Puusepp, Sirje Lind, Innar Hallik, Helene Alavere, Andres Metspalu, Priit Palta, Tõnu Esko, René Mõttus, Uku Vainik

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEesti Teadusagentuur
KeywordsBiobankEstonianPersonalityCohortBig Five personality traitsCohort studyAnthropometryHealth data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like all behaviour, personality traits are substantially heritable, but their genetic background is poorly understood. Investigating traits’ genetic background could help explain disparities in health and other life outcomes they contribute to. We describe two cohorts of the Estonian Biobank for whom, besides self- and informant-rated personality traits, detailed data are available on a wide range of measures including health behaviour, biomarkers, anthropometric measurements, and medical diagnoses and treatments. The first cohort ( N self-report = 3,640, N informant-report = 3,488) filled out the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3) between 2008 and 2018. The second cohort ( N self-report = 77,400, N informant-report = 21,986), collected between 2021 and 2022, responded to a large and diverse item pool called the 100 Nuances of Personality (100NP) covering the Big Five and other traits. Research opportunities include investigation of personality traits’ properties, gene discovery, prediction of health and well-being, and causal modelling. New data are added periodically through additional data collection waves and linkage with various registries and databases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality ScienceSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207