Assessment and ascertainment in psychiatric molecular genetics: challenges and opportunities for cross-disorder research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric disorders are highly comorbid, heritable, and genetically correlated [1-4]. The primary objective of cross-disorder psychiatric genetics research is to identify and characterize both the shared genetic factors that contribute to convergent disease etiologies and the unique genetic factors that distinguish between disorders [4, 5]. This information can illuminate the biological mechanisms underlying comorbid presentations of psychopathology, improve nosology and prediction of illness risk and trajectories, and aid the development of more effective and targeted interventions. In this review we discuss how estimates of comorbidity and identification of shared genetic loci between disorders can be influenced by how disorders are measured (phenotypic assessment) and the inclusion or exclusion criteria in individual genetic studies (sample ascertainment). Specifically, the depth of measurement, source of diagnosis, and time frame of disease trajectory have major implications for the clinical validity of the assessed phenotypes. Further, biases introduced in the ascertainment of both cases and controls can inflate or reduce estimates of genetic correlations. The impact of these design choices may have important implications for large meta-analyses of cohorts from diverse populations that use different forms of assessment and inclusion criteria, and subsequent cross-disorder analyses thereof. We review how assessment and ascertainment affect genetic findings in both univariate and multivariate analyses and conclude with recommendations for addressing them in future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".