CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of gene–environment interactions in developmental psychopathology

Taylor, Alan, Kim-Cohen, Julia·2007·Development and Psychopathology
DOI 10.1017/s095457940700051x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As studies of measured gene–environment interactions (G × E) in developmental psychopathology gain momentum, methods for systematically and quantitatively summarizing effects across multiple studies are urgently needed. Meta-analyses of G × E findings are critical for evaluating the overall statistical and theoretical significance of any given G × E based on cumulative and systematically combined knowledge. Although meta-analytic methods for the combination of study findings based on single effect measures such as odds ratios and mean differences are well established, equivalent methods for the meta-analysis of studies investigating interactions are not well developed. This article describes one simple approach to the meta-analysis of G × E effects using, as a contemporaneous example, the interaction of the monoamine oxidase A ( MAOA ) gene and the impact of childhood maltreatment on risk for developing antisocial behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s095457940700051x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Little, 2006, The HuGENet™ HuGE review handbook
  2. The Cochran Collaboration. (2002). Review manager (RevMan). Version 4.2 for Windows [Software]. Oxford: Author.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 227

Related

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, A., & Kim-Cohen, J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Yale University
Corresponding author
Taylor, Alan
Venue
Development and Psychopathology
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2007
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
1029-1037
ISSN
  • 0954-5794 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2198
DOI
10.1017/s095457940700051x
OpenAlex
W2133897913
Cited by
227
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 283 d)
Locations
  • Development and Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
gene-environment interaction, developmental psychopathology, monoamine oxidase A, MAOA gene, child abuse, antisocial behavior
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Abuse, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Crime, Genotype, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Monoamine Oxidase, Social Environment, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Odds Ratio, Conduct Disorder, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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