Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2017-05-24T10:28:55Z
dc.date.available2017-05-24T10:28:55Z
dc.date.created2016-08-19T13:20:14Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationRøysamb, Espen Tambs, Kristian . The beauty, logic and limitations of twin studies. Norsk Epidemiologi. 2016, 26(1-2), 35-46
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/55474
dc.description.abstractDuring the last fifty years more than 2700 twin studies have been published, examining the etiology of a high number of traits. Twin studies enable investigation of both genetic and environmental effects, and thereby also examination of causal factors involved in human traits and disorders. The beauty of twin studies resides in the potential of studying the unobserved by the logic of a design. The aim of this article is to outline central theoretical foundations and possible limitations, and to review selected key findings. We describe the inherent fundamentals of the classic and extended twin designs. The logic of the main analytic approaches is outlined, and the principles of univariate biometric modelling described. Next, we review different multivariate models, including the Cholesky, correlated factors, common factor, common pathway and phenotypic causality models. Additionally, the cotwin-control approach, representing a natural experimental design, and mimicking a counterfactual situation, is outlined. Central assumptions, threats and limitations of the twin design are discussed. In particular, we address the issue of missing heritability, non-random mating, the equal environment assumption and gene-environment correlations. Finally, we review some selected findings from the field of behavior genetics and twin studies.en_US
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherNorsk forening for epidemiologi
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleThe beauty, logic and limitations of twin studiesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.creator.authorRøysamb, Espen
dc.creator.authorTambs, Kristian
cristin.unitcode185,17,5,0
cristin.unitnamePsykologisk institutt
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin1374159
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Norsk Epidemiologi&rft.volume=26&rft.spage=35&rft.date=2016
dc.identifier.jtitleNorsk Epidemiologi
dc.identifier.volume26
dc.identifier.issue1-2
dc.identifier.startpage35
dc.identifier.endpage46
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5324/nje.v26i1-2.2014
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-58271
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn0803-2491
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/55474/2/Roysamb_2016_The.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International