Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30942833›Full record

ArticleJAMA psychiatry2019

Multi-Polygenic Score Approach to Identifying Individual Vulnerabilities Associated With the Risk of Exposure to Bullying.

Tabea Schoeler, Shing Wan Choi, Frank Dudbridge, Jessie Baldwin, Lauren Duncan, Charlotte M Cecil, Esther Walton, Essi Viding, Eamon McCrory, Jean-Baptiste Pingault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Tabea SchoelerDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shing Wan ChoiSocial Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Frank DudbridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Jessie BaldwinDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lauren DuncanDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Charlotte M CecilDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Esther WaltonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Essi VidingDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Eamon McCroryDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jean-Baptiste PingaultDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council 102215/2/13/2Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009Medical Research Council MR/N015746/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Exposure to bullying is a prevalent experience with adverse consequences throughout the life span. Individual vulnerabilities and traits, such as preexisting mental health problems, may be associated with increased likelihood of experiencing bullying. Identifying such individual vulnerabilities and traits is essential for a better understanding of the etiology of exposure to bullying and for tailoring effective prevention. Objective: To identify individual vulnerabilities and traits associated with exposure to bullying in childhood and adolescence. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this study, data were drawn from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a population-based birth cohort study. The initial ALSPAC sample consisted of 14 062 children born to women residing in Avon, United Kingdom, with an expected date of delivery between April 1, 1991, and December 31, 1992. Collection of the ALSPAC data began in September 6, 1990, and the last follow-up assessment of exposure to bullying was conducted when participants were 13 years of age. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2017, to January 1, 2019. Exposures: The polygenic score approach was used to derive genetic proxies that indexed vulnerabilities and traits. A total of 35 polygenic scores were computed for a range of mental health vulnerabilities (eg, depression) and traits related to cognition (eg, intelligence), personality (eg, neuroticism), and physical measures (eg, body mass index), as well as negative controls (eg, osteoporosis). Main Outcomes and Measures: Single and multi-polygenic score regression models were fitted to test the association between indexed traits and exposure to bullying. Children completed the Bullying and Friendship Interview Schedule at the ages of 8, 10, and 13 years. A mean score of exposure to bullying across ages was used as the main outcome. Results: A total of 5028 genotyped individuals (2481 boys and 2547 girls) with data on exposure to bullying were included. Among the 35 initially included polygenic scores, 11 were independently associated with exposure to bullying; no significant association was detected for the 24 remaining scores. In multivariable analyses, 5 polygenic scores were associated with exposure to bullying; the largest associations were present for genetic risk relating to mental health vulnerabilities, including diagnosis of depression (standardized b = 0.065; 95% CI, 0.035-0.095) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (standardized b = 0.063; 95% CI, 0.035-0.091), followed by risk taking (standardized b = 0.041; 95% CI, 0.013-0.069), body mass index (standardized b = 0.036; 95% CI, 0.008-0.064), and intelligence (standardized b = -0.031; 95% CI, -0.059 to 0.003). Conclusion and Relevance: Using the multi-polygenic score approach, the findings implicate preexisting mental health vulnerabilities as risk factors for exposure to bullying. A mechanistic understanding of how these vulnerabilities link to exposure of bullying is important to inform prevention strategies.

Indexed as

IntelligencePersonalityAdolescentBullyingChildCrime VictimsDepressionFemaleGenetic Association StudiesHumansMaleRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID30942833
PMCPMC6583782

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.