ArticleTranslational psychiatry2024
The structure of psychiatric comorbidity without selection and assortative mating.
Article in Translational psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-random mating patterns within and across education and mental and somatic health.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Non-random Mating Patterns in Education, Mental, and Somatic Health: A Population Study on Within- and Cross-Trait Associations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Genetic similarity between relatives provides evidence on the presence and history of assortative mating.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The widespread comorbidity observed across psychiatric disorders may be the result of processes such as assortative mating, gene-environment correlation, or selection into population studies. Between-family analyses of comorbidity are subject to these sources of bias, whereas within-family analyses are not. Because of Mendelian inheritance, alleles are randomly assigned within families, conditional on parental alleles. We exploit this variation to compare the structure of comorbidity across broad psychiatric polygenic scores when calculated either between-family (child polygenic scores) or within-family (child polygenic scores regressed on parental polygenic scores) in over 25,000 genotyped parent-offspring trios from the Norwegian Mother Father and Child Cohort study (MoBa). We fitted a series of factor models to the between- and within-family data, which consisted of a single genetic p-factor and a varying number of uncorrelated subfactors. The best-fitting model was identical for between- and within-family analyses and included three subfactors capturing variants associated with neurodevelopment, psychosis, and constraint, in addition to the genetic p-factor. Partner genetic correlations, indicating assortative mating, were not present for the genetic p-factor, but were substantial for the psychosis (b = 0.081;95% CI [0.038,0.124]) and constraint (b = 0.257;95% CI [0.075,0.439]) subfactors. When average factor levels for MoBa mothers and fathers were compared to a population mean of zero we found evidence of sex-specific participation bias, which has implications for the generalizability of findings from cohort studies. Our results demonstrate the power of the within-family design for better understanding the mechanisms driving psychiatric comorbidity and their consequences on population health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.