Cited by 25Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

The study of gene environment interactions in psychiatry: Limited gains at a substantial cost?

Open access
Zammit, S., Wiles, N., Lewis, G.·2010·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

There is an ever-increasing body of literature examining gene–environment interactions in psychiatry, reflecting a widespread belief that such studies will aid identification of novel risk factors for disease, increase understanding about underlying pathological mechanisms, and aid identification of high-risk groups for targeted interventions. In this article we discuss to what extent studies of gene–environment interactions are likely to lead to any such benefits in the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291709991280

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Currently evidence that effects of cannabis differ according to variation at AKT1 is not robust.

    “however there are substantial concerns around gene environment interaction studies (38,41), and currently evidence that effects of cannabis differ according to variation at AKT1 is not robust.”
  • None of eight studies published since the Dunedin COMT finding replicate the interaction.

    “None of eight studies published since then replicate this (e.g.see 37,38).”

    From Association Between Cannabis and Psychosis: Epidemiologic Evidence (2016) · cites this paper as [38]

    The 'Why study interactions?' section describes Caspi et al.'s original COMT–cannabis finding, but does not assess subsequent studies. Searches for eight studies and COMT replication found no passage in our copy stating that eight later studies failed to replicate it; the 'Costs of studying interactions' discussion of replication concerns a different interaction. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zammit, S., Wiles, N., & Lewis, G.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Zammit, S.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2009-09-24
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
711-716
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2141945169
Cited by
25
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
gene-environment interaction, psychiatric genetics, psychiatric risk factors, disease mechanisms, high-risk groups, targeted interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review