6 results
Alcohol milestones and internalizing, externalizing, and executive function: longitudinal and polygenic score associations
- Sarah E. Paul, David A.A. Baranger, Emma C. Johnson, Joshua J. Jackson, Aaron J. Gorelik, Alex P. Miller, Alexander S. Hatoum, Wesley K. Thompson, Michael Strube, Danielle M. Dick, Chella Kamarajan, John R. Kramer, Martin H. Plawecki, Grace Chan, Andrey P. Anokhin, David B. Chorlian, Sivan Kinreich, Jacquelyn L. Meyers, Bernice Porjesz, Howard J. Edenberg, Arpana Agrawal, Kathleen K. Bucholz, Ryan Bogdan
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine , First View
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 09 May 2024, pp. 1-14
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Although the link between alcohol involvement and behavioral phenotypes (e.g. impulsivity, negative affect, executive function [EF]) is well-established, the directionality of these associations, specificity to stages of alcohol involvement, and extent of shared genetic liability remain unclear. We estimate longitudinal associations between transitions among alcohol milestones, behavioral phenotypes, and indices of genetic risk.
MethodsData came from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (n = 3681; ages 11–36). Alcohol transitions (first: drink, intoxication, alcohol use disorder [AUD] symptom, AUD diagnosis), internalizing, and externalizing phenotypes came from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism. EF was measured with the Tower of London and Visual Span Tasks. Polygenic scores (PGS) were computed for alcohol-related and behavioral phenotypes. Cox models estimated associations among PGS, behavior, and alcohol milestones.
ResultsExternalizing phenotypes (e.g. conduct disorder symptoms) were associated with future initiation and drinking problems (hazard ratio (HR)⩾1.16). Internalizing (e.g. social anxiety) was associated with hazards for progression from first drink to severe AUD (HR⩾1.55). Initiation and AUD were associated with increased hazards for later depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation (HR⩾1.38), and initiation was associated with increased hazards for future conduct symptoms (HR = 1.60). EF was not associated with alcohol transitions. Drinks per week PGS was linked with increased hazards for alcohol transitions (HR⩾1.06). Problematic alcohol use PGS increased hazards for suicidal ideation (HR = 1.20).
ConclusionsBehavioral markers of addiction vulnerability precede and follow alcohol transitions, highlighting dynamic, bidirectional relationships between behavior and emerging addiction.
Dual-systems models of the genetic architecture of impulsive personality traits: neurogenetic evidence of distinct but related factors
- Alex P. Miller, Ian R. Gizer
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 54 / Issue 8 / June 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 November 2023, pp. 1533-1543
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Dual-systems models, positing an interaction between two distinct and competing systems (i.e. top-down self-control, and bottom-up reward- or emotion-based drive), provide a parsimonious framework for investigating the interplay between cortical and subcortical brain regions relevant to impulsive personality traits (IPTs) and their associations with psychopathology. Despite recent developments in multivariate analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), molecular genetic investigations of these models have not been conducted.
MethodsUsing IPT GWAS, we conducted confirmatory genomic structural equation models (GenomicSEM) to empirically evaluate dual-systems models of the genetic architecture of IPTs. Genetic correlations between dual-systems factors and relevant cortical and subcortical neuroimaging phenotypes (regional/structural volume, cortical surface area, cortical thickness) were estimated and compared.
ResultsGenomicSEM dual-systems models underscored important sources of shared and unique genetic variance between top-down and bottom-up constructs. Specifically, a dual-systems genomic model consisting of sensation seeking and lack of self-control factors demonstrated distinct but related sources of genetic influences (rg = 0.60). Genetic correlation analyses provided evidence of differential associations between dual-systems factors and cortical neuroimaging phenotypes (e.g. lack of self-control negatively associated with cortical thickness, sensation seeking positively associated with cortical surface area). No significant associations were observed with subcortical phenotypes.
ConclusionsDual-systems models of the genetic architecture of IPTs tested were consistent with study hypotheses, but associations with relevant neuroimaging phenotypes were mixed (e.g. no associations with subcortical volumes). Findings demonstrate the utility of dual-systems models for studying IPT genetic influences, but also highlight potential limitations as a framework for interpreting IPTs as endophenotypes for psychopathology.
Ten new insights in climate science 2020 – a horizon scan
- Erik Pihl, Eva Alfredsson, Magnus Bengtsson, Kathryn J. Bowen, Vanesa Cástan Broto, Kuei Tien Chou, Helen Cleugh, Kristie Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, Eleanor Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Alex Godoy-Faúndez, Mukesh Gupta, Alexandra R. Harrington, Katie Hayes, Bronwyn M. Hayward, Sophie R. Hebden, Thomas Hickmann, Gustaf Hugelius, Tatiana Ilyina, Robert B. Jackson, Trevor F. Keenan, Ria A. Lambino, Sebastian Leuzinger, Mikael Malmaeus, Robert I. McDonald, Celia McMichael, Clark A. Miller, Matteo Muratori, Nidhi Nagabhatla, Harini Nagendra, Cristian Passarello, Josep Penuelas, Julia Pongratz, Johan Rockström, Patricia Romero-Lankao, Joyashree Roy, Adam A. Scaife, Peter Schlosser, Edward Schuur, Michelle Scobie, Steven C. Sherwood, Giles B. Sioen, Jakob Skovgaard, Edgardo A. Sobenes Obregon, Sebastian Sonntag, Joachim H. Spangenberg, Otto Spijkers, Leena Srivastava, Detlef B. Stammer, Pedro H. C. Torres, Merritt R. Turetsky, Anna M. Ukkola, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Christina Voigt, Chadia Wannous, Mark D. Zelinka
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 4 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 January 2021, e5
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding of Earth's sensitivity to carbon dioxide, finds that permafrost thaw could release more carbon emissions than expected and that the uptake of carbon in tropical ecosystems is weakening. Adverse impacts on human society include increasing water shortages and impacts on mental health. Options for solutions emerge from rethinking economic models, rights-based litigation, strengthened governance systems and a new social contract. The disruption caused by COVID-19 could be seized as an opportunity for positive change, directing economic stimulus towards sustainable investments.
Technical summaryA synthesis is made of ten fields within climate science where there have been significant advances since mid-2019, through an expert elicitation process with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) a better understanding of equilibrium climate sensitivity; (2) abrupt thaw as an accelerator of carbon release from permafrost; (3) changes to global and regional land carbon sinks; (4) impacts of climate change on water crises, including equity perspectives; (5) adverse effects on mental health from climate change; (6) immediate effects on climate of the COVID-19 pandemic and requirements for recovery packages to deliver on the Paris Agreement; (7) suggested long-term changes to governance and a social contract to address climate change, learning from the current pandemic, (8) updated positive cost–benefit ratio and new perspectives on the potential for green growth in the short- and long-term perspective; (9) urban electrification as a strategy to move towards low-carbon energy systems and (10) rights-based litigation as an increasingly important method to address climate change, with recent clarifications on the legal standing and representation of future generations.
Social media summaryStronger permafrost thaw, COVID-19 effects and growing mental health impacts among highlights of latest climate science.
4 - Who Do We Blame for the Filter Bubble? On the Roles of Math, Data, and People in Algorithmic Social Systems
- from Part II - Algorithms
- Edited by Kevin Werbach
-
- Book:
- After the Digital Tornado
- Published online:
- 24 August 2020
- Print publication:
- 23 July 2020, pp 103-121
-
- Chapter
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Summary
The rise of “filter bubbles,” which narrow the scope of users’ information environments, is one of the most concerning unanticipated consequences of the Internet. The question, however, is how these bubbles of polarization arise. Are they inherent in algorithmic filtering mechanisms such as recommendation engines, or do they arise from other causes as well? All algorithmic systems can be understood in terms of three elements: data, algorithmic logic, and human interactions. Abstracting in this way avoids getting caught up in the complexity and variety of data science techniques. It also counterbalances the natural tendency to focus solely on algorithms themselves. While services such as Facebook contribute to filter bubbles by algorithmically recommending content that reinforces existing viewpoints, what users share to begin with and what they click on once surfaced by the algorithm also matter a great deal. A simulation experiment demonstrates how filter bubbles emerge or collapse from the interactions of all three factors.
Contributors
-
- By Douglas L. Arnold, Laura J. Balcer, Amit Bar-Or, Sergio E. Baranzini, Frederik Barkhof, Robert A. Bermel, Francois A. Bethoux, Dennis N. Bourdette, Richard K. Burt, Peter A. Calabresi, Zografos Caramanos, Tanuja Chitnis, Stacey S. Cofield, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Nadine Cohen, Alasdair J. Coles, Devon Conway, Stuart D. Cook, Gary R. Cutter, Peter J. Darlington, Ann Dodds-Frerichs, Ranjan Dutta, Gilles Edan, Michelle Fabian, Franz Fazekas, Massimo Filippi, Elizabeth Fisher, Paulo Fontoura, Corey C. Ford, Robert J. Fox, Natasha Frost, Alex Z. Fu, Siegrid Fuchs, Kazuo Fujihara, Kristin M. Galetta, Jeroen J.G. Geurts, Gavin Giovannoni, Nada Gligorov, Ralf Gold, Andrew D. Goodman, Myla D. Goldman, Jenny Guerre, Stephen L. Hauser, Peter B. Imrey, Douglas R. Jeffery, Stephen E. Jones, Adam I. Kaplin, Michael W. Kattan, B. Mark Keegan, Kyle C. Kern, Zhaleh Khaleeli, Samia J. Khoury, Joep Killestein, Soo Hyun Kim, R. Philip Kinkel, Stephen C. Krieger, Lauren B. Krupp, Emmanuelle Le Page, David Leppert, Scott Litwiller, Fred D. Lublin, Henry F. McFarland, Joseph C. McGowan, Don Mahad, Jahangir Maleki, Ruth Ann Marrie, Paul M. Matthews, Francesca Milanetti, Aaron E. Miller, Deborah M. Miller, Xavier Montalban, Charity J. Morgan, Ichiro Nakashima, Sridar Narayanan, Avindra Nath, Paul W. O’Connor, Jorge R. Oksenberg, A. John Petkau, Michael D. Phillips, J. Theodore Phillips, Tammy Phinney, Sean J. Pittock, Sarah M. Planchon, Chris H. Polman, Alexander Rae-Grant, Stephen M. Rao, Stephen C. Reingold, Maria A. Rocca, Richard A. Rudick, Amber R. Salter, Paula Sandler, Jaume Sastre-Garriga, John R. Scagnelli, Dana J. Serafin, Lynne Shinto, Nancy L. Sicotte, Jack H. Simon, Per Soelberg Sørensen, Ryan E. Stagg, James M. Stankiewicz, Lael A. Stone, Amy Sullivan, Matthew Sutliff, Jessica Szpak, Alan J. Thompson, Bruce D. Trapp, Helen Tremlett, Maria Trojano, Orla Tuohy, Rhonda R. Voskuhl, Marc K. Walton, Mike P. Wattjes, Emmanuelle Waubant, Martin S. Weber, Howard L Weiner, Brian G. Weinshenker, Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, Jeffrey L. Winters, Jerry S. Wolinsky, Vijayshree Yadav, E. Ann Yeh, Scott S. Zamvil
- Edited by Jeffrey A. Cohen, Richard A. Rudick
-
- Book:
- Multiple Sclerosis Therapeutics
- Published online:
- 05 December 2011
- Print publication:
- 20 October 2011, pp viii-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Graeme J.M. Alexander, Heung Bae Kim, Michael Burch, Andrew J. Butler, Tanveer Butt, Roy Calne, Edward Cantu, Robert B. Colvin, Paul Corris, Charles Crawley, Hiroshi Date, Francis L. Delmonico, Bimalangshu R. Dey, Kate Drummond, John Dunning, John D. Firth, John Forsythe, Simon M. Gabe, Robert S. Gaston, William Gelson, Paul Gibbs, Alex Gimson, Leo C. Ginns, Samuel Goldfarb, Ryoichi Goto, Walter K. Graham, Simon J.F. Harper, Koji Hashimoto, David G. Healy, Hassan N. Ibrahim, David Ip, Fadi G. Issa, Neville V. Jamieson, David P. Jenkins, Dixon B. Kaufman, Kiran K. Khush, Heung Bae Kim, Andrew A. Klein, John Klinck, Camille Nelson Kotton, Vineeta Kumar, Yael B. Kushner, D. Frank. P. Larkin, Clive J. Lewis, Yvonne H. Luo, Richard S. Luskin, Ernest I. Mandel, James F. Markmann, Lorna Marson, Arthur J. Matas, Mandeep R. Mehra, Stephen J. Middleton, Giorgina Mieli-Vergani, Charles Miller, Sharon Mulroy, Faruk Özalp, Can Ozturk, Jayan Parameshwar, J.S. Parmar, Hari K. Parthasarathy, Nick Pritchard, Cristiano Quintini, Axel O. Rahmel, Chris J. Rudge, Stephan V.B. Schueler, Maria Siemionow, Jacob Simmonds, Peter Slinger, Thomas R. Spitzer, Stuart C. Sweet, Nina E. Tolkoff-Rubin, Steven S.L. Tsui, Khashayar Vakili, R.V. Venkateswaran, Hector Vilca-Melendez, Vladimir Vinarsky, Kathryn J. Wood, Heidi Yeh, David W. Zaas, Jonathan G. Zaroff
- Edited by Andrew A. Klein, Clive J. Lewis, Joren C. Madsen
-
- Book:
- Organ Transplantation
- Published online:
- 07 September 2011
- Print publication:
- 11 August 2011, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation