ArticleJCPP advances2022
A multi-informant and multi-polygenic approach to understanding predictors of peer victimisation in childhood and adolescence.
Article in JCPP advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective and objective experiences of childhood adversity: a meta-analysis of their agreement and relationships with psychopathology.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2023Pooled it
- Neurodevelopmental traits as mechanisms linking genetic predispositions to bullying involvement.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- A multi-informant and multi-polygenic approach to understanding predictors of peer victimisation in childhood and adolescence.JCPP advances · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Peer victimisation is a prevalent occurrence in childhood and adolescence and can often have long-lasting consequences. Previous research using polygenic scores (PGSs) have revealed various genetic vulnerabilities as predictive of victimisation in childhood. However, findings were based on self-report and may therefore be influenced by varying self-perceptions. Previous investigations also focused on average victimisation across childhood, and thus do not capture variability in polygenic predictability over time. The present study, therefore, aimed to investigate associations between PGSs and victimisation using separate and combined reports from teachers and peers in childhood, as well as self-reports in later adolescence to explore trajectories of victimisation. Methods: Data were derived from the Quebec Newborn Twin Study. Participants were assessed for victimisation using self-reports from 7 to 17 years and using teacher ratings and peer nominations between 7 and 10 years ( Results: Findings revealed that PGSs associated with victimisation are consistent across informants, but to varying extent according to estimated effect sizes. Self-reported victimisation was predicted by PGSs related to mental health, while PGSs related to cognitive and physical traits had larger effect estimates when predicting teacher- and peer-reported victimisation. The PGS for educational attainment was consistently negatively associated with victimisation across informants, producing the largest effect estimates ( Conclusion: While the PGS for educational attainment is a robust predictor of victimisation, many PGSs are differentially associated with victimisation depending on the informant. Such findings highlight the need to pay close attention to the phenotypic assessment of victimisation, and show that using multiple informants can both strengthen and provide unique insight into how associations may occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.