Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971729›Full record

ArticleMolecular psychiatry2019

Genomic prediction of cognitive traits in childhood and adolescence.

A G Allegrini, S Selzam, K Rimfeld, S von Stumm, J B Pingault, R Plomin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Early-childhood temperament deviations mark psychiatric risk into early adulthood.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

A G AllegriniSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK. andrea.allegrini@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4048-4292
S SelzamSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK.
K RimfeldSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5139-065X
S von StummDepartment of Education, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
J B PingaultClinical Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
R PlominSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan behavioral development & cognitive aging (CATSLife2)R01AG046938 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI REYNOLDS, CHANDRA A, WADSWORTH, SALLY J · 2015 to 2024
$18.5M
Medical Research Council G0901245Medical Research Council G19/2Medical Research Council MR/M021475/1NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in genomics are producing powerful DNA predictors of complex traits, especially cognitive abilities. Here, we leveraged summary statistics from the most recent genome-wide association studies of intelligence and educational attainment, with highly genetically correlated traits, to build prediction models of general cognitive ability and educational achievement. To this end, we compared the performances of multi-trait genomic and polygenic scoring methods. In a representative UK sample of 7,026 children at ages 12 and 16, we show that we can now predict up to 11% of the variance in intelligence and 16% in educational achievement. We also show that predictive power increases from age 12 to age 16 and that genomic predictions do not differ for girls and boys. We found that multi-trait genomic methods were effective in boosting predictive power. Prediction accuracy varied across polygenic score approaches, however results were similar for different multi-trait and polygenic score methods. We discuss general caveats of multi-trait methods and polygenic score prediction, and conclude that polygenic scores for educational attainment and intelligence are currently the most powerful predictors in the behavioural sciences.

Indexed as

Academic SuccessAdolescentChildCognitionEducational StatusFemaleForecastingGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsGenotypeHumansIntelligenceMaleMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID30971729
PMCPMC6986352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.