ArticleNPJ science of learning2024
Exploring the genetic prediction of academic underachievement and overachievement.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Academic underachievement refers to school performance which falls below expectations. Focusing on the pivotal first stage of education, we explored a quantitative measure of underachievement using genomically predicted achievement delta (GPAΔ), which reflects the difference between observed and expected achievement predicted by genome-wide polygenic scores. We analyzed the relationship between GPAΔ at age 7 and achievement trajectories from ages 7 to 16, using longitudinal data from 4175 participants in the Twins Early Development Study to assess empirically the extent to which students regress to their genomically predicted levels by age 16. We found that the achievement of underachievers and overachievers who deviated from their genomic predictions at age 7 regressed on average by one-third towards their genomically predicted levels. We also found that GPAΔ at age 7 was as predictive of achievement trajectories as a traditional ability-based index of underachievement. Targeting GPAΔ underachievers might prove cost-effective because such interventions seem more likely to succeed by going with the genetic flow rather than swimming upstream, helping GPAΔ underachievers reach their genetic potential as predicted by their GPS. However, this is a hypothesis that needs to be tested in intervention research investigating whether GPAΔ underachievers respond better to the intervention than other underachievers. We discuss the practicality of genomic indices in assessing underachievement.
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.