Role of Polygenic Risk Score in the Familial Transmission of Bipolar Disorder in Youth
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Establishing genetic contributions to the transmission of bipolar disorder (BD) from parents to offspring may inform the risk of developing this disorder and further serve to validate BD in youth. Objective: To evaluate the specific association of BD polygenic risk scores (PRSs) on the familial transmission and validity of pediatric BD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This community-based case-control longitudinal study (Pittsburgh Biological Offspring Study) included parents with BD I/II and their offspring and parents without BD (healthy or non-BD psychopathology) and their offspring. Participants were recruited between March 2001 and May 2007, and analysis took place from December 2020 to September 2021. Exposures: PRSs for BD, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were prospectively evaluated using standardized interviews blind to parental diagnosis. DNA was extracted from saliva and genotyped. PRSs were constructed based on independent large-scale genome-wide association studies. Results: A total of 156 parents with BD I/II and 180 parents without BD (mean [SD] age, 39.6 [7.9] years; 241 female [72%]) as well as 251 offspring of parents with BD and 158 offspring of parents without BD (mean [SD] age, 10.4 [4.7] years; 213 female [52%]) of European ancestry were analyzed. Participants were assessed a mean of 6.7 times during a mean (SD) of 13 (3.4) years of follow-up (84% retention). More offspring of parents with BD developed BD (58 [23.1%] vs 8 [5.1%]; P < .001) and depression (126 [50.2%] vs 52 [32.9%]; P < .001) compared with offspring of parents without BD. BD PRS was higher in both parents and offspring with BD than parents and offspring without BD (parents: odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.89; P < .001; explained 4.8% of the phenotypic variance vs offspring: hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.7; P = .02; explained 5.0% of the phenotypic variance). BD PRS did not differ across BD subtypes. In a model combining parental and offspring BD PRS, the parental BD PRS association with offspring BD was fully mediated by offspring BD PRS (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.86; P = .02). Parental BD had a stronger direct association than parental or offspring BD PRS with offspring BD risk (hazard ratio, 5.21; 95% CI, 1.86-14.62; P = .002), explaining 30% of the variance. Parental and offspring BD PRS explained 6% of the BD onset variance beyond parental diagnosis. There were no significant between-group differences in PRSs for major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in parents or offspring and they were not significantly associated with BD onset. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study add to the extant clinical validation of BD in youth. Parental BD and offspring BD PRS independently associated with the risk of BD in offspring. Although this is promising, the association of BD PRS was relatively small and cannot be used alone to determine BD risk until further developments occur.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».