Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32479557›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

Studying individual risk factors for self-harm in the UK Biobank: A polygenic scoring and Mendelian randomisation study.

Kai Xiang Lim, Frühling Rijsdijk, Saskia P Hagenaars, Adam Socrates, Shing Wan Choi, Jonathan R I Coleman, Kylie P Glanville, Cathryn M Lewis, Jean-Baptiste Pingault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Genetics and epigenetics of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: Systematic review of the suicide literature and methodological considerations.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kai Xiang LimSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5709-4966
Frühling RijsdijkSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4762-2803
Saskia P HagenaarsSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9697-8596
Adam SocratesSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shing Wan ChoiSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2215-3238
Jonathan R I ColemanSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6759-0944
Kylie P GlanvilleSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8321-9435
Cathryn M LewisSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8249-8476
Jean-Baptiste PingaultSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MR/N015746/1Medical Research Council MR/S0151132Medical Research Council MR/S015132/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying causal risk factors for self-harm is essential to inform preventive interventions. Epidemiological studies have identified risk factors associated with self-harm, but these associations can be subject to confounding. By implementing genetically informed methods to better account for confounding, this study aimed to better identify plausible causal risk factors for self-harm. METHODS AND

findingsUsing summary statistics from 24 genome-wide association studies (GWASs) comprising 16,067 to 322,154 individuals, polygenic scores (PSs) were generated to index 24 possible individual risk factors for self-harm (i.e., mental health vulnerabilities, substance use, cognitive traits, personality traits, and physical traits) among a subset of UK Biobank participants (N = 125,925, 56.2% female) who completed an online mental health questionnaire in the period from 13 July 2016 to 27 July 2017. In total, 5,520 (4.4%) of these participants reported having self-harmed in their lifetime. In binomial regression models, PSs indexing 6 risk factors (major depressive disorder [MDD], attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcohol dependence disorder, and lifetime cannabis use) predicted self-harm, with effect sizes ranging from odds ratio (OR) = 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07, q = 0.008) for lifetime cannabis use to OR = 1.20 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.23, q = 1.33 × 10-35) for MDD. No systematic differences emerged between suicidal and non-suicidal self-harm. To further probe causal relationships, two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses were conducted, with MDD, ADHD, and schizophrenia emerging as the most plausible causal risk factors for self-harm. The genetic liabilities for MDD and schizophrenia were associated with self-harm independently of diagnosis and medication. Main limitations include the lack of representativeness of the UK Biobank sample, that self-harm was self-reported, and the limited power of some of the included GWASs, potentially leading to possible type II error.

conclusionsIn addition to confirming the role of MDD, we demonstrate that ADHD and schizophrenia likely play a role in the aetiology of self-harm using multivariate genetic designs for causal inference. Among the many individual risk factors we simultaneously considered, our findings suggest that systematic detection and treatment of core psychiatric symptoms, including psychotic and impulsivity symptoms, may be beneficial among people at risk for self-harm.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBipolar DisorderDatabases as TopicFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansLogistic ModelsMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMendelian Randomization AnalysisMiddle AgedMultifactorial InheritanceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID32479557
PMCPMC7263593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.