Table 3 Results from common pathway model: shared and specific influences on the three components of ES.

From: Genetic architecture of Environmental Sensitivity reflects multiple heritable components: a twin study with adolescents

 Common ACE influencesSpecific ACE influences    
 AcCcEcAsCsEs    
Ease of excitation0.42 (0.23, 0.48)0.01 (0.00, 0.14)0.39 (0.30, 0.50)0.00 (0.00, 0.00)0.00 (0.00, 0.00)0.18 (0.09, 0.27)    
Aesthetic sensitivity0.04 (0.02, 0.06)0.00 (0.00, 0.01)0.04 (0.03, 0.05)0.29 (0.20, 0.35)0.00 (0.00, 0.01)0.63 (0.56, 0.69)    
Low sensory threshold0.17 (0.10, 0.22)0.00 (0.00, 0.06)0.16 (0.13, 0.21)0.24 (0.15, 0.29)0.00 (0.00, 0.01)0.42 (0.37, 0.48)    
Model fit summary for common pathway and Cholesky correlated factors solution
 Models fitCompared with saturated modelCompared with Cholesky
 Parameters−2lldfAICΔ−2llΔdfpΔ−2llΔdfp
Fully saturated13549427.65846932489.65      
Constrained4849504.15855632392.1576.50870.78   
Cholesky correlated factors2649544.76857832388.76117.101090.28   
Common pathway2349550.72858232386.72123.071130.245.9740.20
  1. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented in brackets. CIs not including 0 indicate significant estimate.
  2. Ac common A influences, Cc common C influences, Ec common E influences, As specific A influences, Cs specific C influences, Es specific E influences, fully saturated model with maximum number of parameters describing the data, constrained the saturated model constrained to have the same mean and SD across twin and zygosity, −2ll minus twice the log likelihood, df degrees of freedom, AIC Akaike’s information criterion, Δ−2ll difference in −2ll value, Δdf difference in degrees of freedom, p p value.