↓ Skip to main content

Myopia and intelligence:a pleiotropic relationship?

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, September 1988
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Myopia and intelligence:a pleiotropic relationship?
Published in
Human Genetics, September 1988
DOI 10.1007/bf00451456
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanford J. Cohn, Catherine M. G. Cohn, Arthur R. Jensen

Abstract

The well-established association between myopia and superior intelligence in the general population was investigated in a group of intellectually gifted children and their less gifted full siblings to determine whether the relationship of myopia to psychometric intelligence is consistent with the hypothesis of pleiotropy, i.e., both characteristics are affected by the same gene or set of genes. Failure to find a difference in degree of myopia, assessed as a metric variable, between intellectually gifted and nongifted siblings would contradict pleiotropy. A variety of possible causal pathways, both genetic and environmental, have been hypothesized in the literature to explain the relationship between intelligence and myopia, and these still cannot be ruled out. It is theoretically noteworthy, however, in view of the independent evidence for the considerable heritability of both intelligence and myopia, that the highly significant gifted-nongifted sibling difference in myopia found in the present study is consistent with the hypothesis that intelligence and myopia are related pleiotropically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,193,490
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#265
of 2,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#609
of 12,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 12,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them