Defining Suicidal Thought and Behavior Phenotypes for Genetic Studies

E. T. Monson, S. M. Colbert, O. A. Andreassen, O. O. Ayinde, C. A. Bejan, Z. Ceja, H. Coon, E. DiBlasi, A. Izotova, E. A. Kaufman, M. Koromina, W. Myung, J. I. Nurnberger, A. Serretti, J. Smoller, M. Stein, C. C. Zai, Suicide Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics , M. Aslan, P. B. Barr, T. Bigdeli, P. D. Harvey, N. Kimbrel, P. R. Patel, Cooperative Studies Program 572, D. Ruderfer, A. R. Docherty, N. Mullins, J. J. Mann
{"title":"Defining Suicidal Thought and Behavior Phenotypes for Genetic Studies","authors":"E. T. Monson, S. M. Colbert, O. A. Andreassen, O. O. Ayinde, C. A. Bejan, Z. Ceja, H. Coon, E. DiBlasi, A. Izotova, E. A. Kaufman, M. Koromina, W. Myung, J. I. Nurnberger, A. Serretti, J. Smoller, M. Stein, C. C. Zai, Suicide Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics , M. Aslan, P. B. Barr, T. Bigdeli, P. D. Harvey, N. Kimbrel, P. R. Patel, Cooperative Studies Program 572, D. Ruderfer, A. R. Docherty, N. Mullins, J. J. Mann","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.27.24311110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Standardized definitions of suicidality phenotypes, including suicidal ideation (SI), attempt (SA), and death (SD) are a critical step towards improving understanding and comparison of results in suicide research. The complexity of suicidality contributes to heterogeneity in phenotype definitions, impeding evaluation of clinical and genetic risk factors across studies and efforts to combine samples within consortia. Here, we present expert and data-supported recommendations for defining suicidality and control phenotypes to facilitate merging current/legacy samples with definition variability and aid future sample creation. Methods: A subgroup of clinician researchers and experts from the Suicide Workgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) reviewed existing PGC definitions for SI, SA, SD, and control groups and generated preliminary consensus guidelines for instrument-derived and international classification of disease (ICD) data. ICD lists were validated in two independent datasets (N = 9,151 and 12,394). Results: Recommendations are provided for evaluated instruments for SA and SI, emphasizing selection of lifetime measures phenotype-specific wording. Recommendations are also provided for defining SI and SD from ICD data. As the SA ICD definition is complex, SA code list recommendations were validated against instrument results with sensitivity (range = 15.4% to 80.6%), specificity (range = 67.6% to 97.4%), and positive predictive values (range = 0.59-0.93) reported. Conclusions: Best-practice guidelines are presented for the use of existing information to define SI/SA/SD in consortia research. These proposed definitions are expected to facilitate more homogeneous data aggregation for genetic and multisite studies. Future research should involve refinement, improved generalizability, and validation in diverse populations.","PeriodicalId":506788,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.27.24311110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Standardized definitions of suicidality phenotypes, including suicidal ideation (SI), attempt (SA), and death (SD) are a critical step towards improving understanding and comparison of results in suicide research. The complexity of suicidality contributes to heterogeneity in phenotype definitions, impeding evaluation of clinical and genetic risk factors across studies and efforts to combine samples within consortia. Here, we present expert and data-supported recommendations for defining suicidality and control phenotypes to facilitate merging current/legacy samples with definition variability and aid future sample creation. Methods: A subgroup of clinician researchers and experts from the Suicide Workgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) reviewed existing PGC definitions for SI, SA, SD, and control groups and generated preliminary consensus guidelines for instrument-derived and international classification of disease (ICD) data. ICD lists were validated in two independent datasets (N = 9,151 and 12,394). Results: Recommendations are provided for evaluated instruments for SA and SI, emphasizing selection of lifetime measures phenotype-specific wording. Recommendations are also provided for defining SI and SD from ICD data. As the SA ICD definition is complex, SA code list recommendations were validated against instrument results with sensitivity (range = 15.4% to 80.6%), specificity (range = 67.6% to 97.4%), and positive predictive values (range = 0.59-0.93) reported. Conclusions: Best-practice guidelines are presented for the use of existing information to define SI/SA/SD in consortia research. These proposed definitions are expected to facilitate more homogeneous data aggregation for genetic and multisite studies. Future research should involve refinement, improved generalizability, and validation in diverse populations.
为遗传研究定义自杀思想和行为表型
背景:自杀表型(包括自杀意念(SI)、自杀未遂(SA)和自杀死亡(SD))的标准化定义是提高自杀研究结果的理解和比较的关键一步。自杀倾向的复杂性导致了表型定义的异质性,阻碍了对不同研究的临床和遗传风险因素的评估,也阻碍了在联合体内合并样本的努力。在此,我们提出了专家建议和有数据支持的建议,用于定义自杀性和控制表型,以促进合并当前/传统样本中的定义差异,并帮助未来样本的创建。方法:来自精神疾病基因组学联盟(PGC)自杀问题工作组的临床研究人员和专家组成了一个分组,该分组对现有的 PGC 关于 SI、SA、SD 和对照组的定义进行了审查,并针对仪器得出的数据和国际疾病分类(ICD)数据提出了初步的共识指南。两个独立数据集(N = 9,151 和 12,394)对 ICD 列表进行了验证。结果:为 SA 和 SI 的评估工具提供了建议,强调选择终身测量表型特定的措辞。此外,还提供了根据 ICD 数据定义 SI 和 SD 的建议。由于 SA ICD 定义复杂,SA 代码表建议与工具结果进行了验证,报告了灵敏度(范围 = 15.4% 至 80.6%)、特异性(范围 = 67.6% 至 97.4%)和阳性预测值(范围 = 0.59-0.93)。结论:本文提出了在联合研究中使用现有信息定义 SI/SA/SD 的最佳实践指南。这些建议的定义有望促进基因研究和多地点研究的数据汇总更加统一。未来的研究应包括改进、提高通用性以及在不同人群中进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信