Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30094700›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2018

Current Knowledge on Gene-Environment Interactions in Personality Disorders: an Update.

Andrea Bulbena-Cabre, Anahita Bassir Nia, M Mercedes Perez-Rodriguez

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea Bulbena-CabreDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Anahita Bassir NiaDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
M Mercedes Perez-RodriguezDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. mercedes.perez@mssm.edu.
Yale University · USUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe review the existing literature on gene-environment interactions (G×E) and epigenetic changes primarily in borderline personality disorder (BPD) but also in antisocial, schizotypal, and avoidant personality disorders. RECENT

findingsResearch supports that susceptibility genes to BPD or its underlying traits may be expressed under certain environmental conditions such as physical or childhood sexual abuse. Epigenetic modifications of neurodevelopment- and stress-related genes are suggested to underlie the relationship between early life adversary and borderline personality disorder. Only limited studies have investigated the role of gene-environment interactions and epigenetic changes in the genesis of antisocial, schizotypal, and avoidant personality disorders. Considering the lack of pharmacological treatment for most personality disorders, the emerging evidence on the critical role of G×E and epigenetic changes in the genesis of personality disorders could help develop more biologically oriented therapeutic approaches. Future studies should explore the potential of this new therapeutic dimension.

Indexed as

Gene-Environment InteractionAntisocial Personality DisorderBorderline Personality DisorderHumansPersonality DisordersBorderline personality disorderEpigeneticGene environment interactionGeneticPersonality disorder

Identifiers

PMID30094700
OpenAlexW2885924996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.