On the validity of the TDT test in the presence of comorbidity and ascertainment bias

Associations of anabolic-androgenic steroid use with other behavioral disorders: an analysis using directed acyclic graphs

BACKGROUND

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use is known to be associated with other psychiatric disorders, such as body image disorders, conduct disorder/sociopathy, and other substance use disorders (SUD) - but the causal pathways among these conditions remain poorly delineated.

METHODS

We created a directed acyclic graph to diagram hypothesized relationships among AAS use and dependence, body image disorder (BID), conduct disorder/sociopathy, and other SUD. Using proportional hazards models, we then assessed potentially causal relationships among these variables, using a dataset of 233 male weightlifters, of whom 102 had used AAS.

RESULTS

BID and conduct disorder/sociopathy both strongly contributed to the development of AAS use, but did not appear to contribute further to the progression from AAS use to AAS dependence. Other SUD beginning prior to first AAS use - whether broadly defined or restricted only to opioids - failed to show an effect on AAS use or progression to AAS dependence. Conversely, AAS use contributed significantly to the subsequent first-time development of opioid use disorders but did not significantly increase the risk for first-time development of non-opioid SUD, taken as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that AAS use and other SUD are mutually attributable to underlying conduct disorder/sociopathy. SUD do not appear to represent a 'gateway' to subsequent AAS use. AAS use may represent a gateway to subsequent opioid use disorder, but probably not to other SUD.

Disorders and borders: psychiatric genetics and nosology

Over the past century, the definition and classification of psychiatric disorders has evolved through a combination of historical trends, clinical observations, and empirical research. The current nosology, instantiated in the DSM-5 and ICD-10, rests on descriptive criteria agreed upon by a consensus of experts. While the development of explicit criteria has enhanced the reliability of diagnosis, the validity of the current diagnostic categories has been the subject of debate and controversy. Genetic studies have long been regarded as a key resource for validating the boundaries among diagnostic categories. Genetic epidemiologic studies have documented the familiality and heritability of clinically defined psychiatric disorders and molecular genetic studies have begun to identify specific susceptibility variants. At the same time, there is growing evidence from family, twin and genomic studies that genetic influences on psychiatric disorders transcend clinical boundaries. Here I review this evidence for cross-disorder genetic effects and discuss the implications of these findings for psychiatric nosology. Psychiatric genetic research can inform a bottom-up reappraisal of psychopathology that may help the field move beyond a purely descriptive classification and toward an etiology-based nosology.

Causation and causal inference for genetic effects

Over the past three decades, substantial developments have been made on how to infer the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome, using data from observational studies, with the randomized experiment as the golden standard. These developments have reshaped the paradigm of how to build statistical models, how to adjust for confounding, how to assess direct effects, mediated effects and interactions, and even how to analyze data from randomized experiments. The congruence of random transmission of alleles during meiosis and the randomization in controlled experiments/trials, suggests that genetic studies may lend themselves naturally to a causal analysis. In this contribution, we will reflect on this and motivate, through illustrative examples, where insights from the causal inference literature may help to understand and correct for typical biases in genetic effect estimates.

Genome-wide association scans for secondary traits using case-control samples

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) require considerable investment, so researchers often study multiple traits collected on the same set of subjects to maximize return. However, many GWAS have adopted a case-control design; improperly accounting for case-control ascertainment can lead to biased estimates of association between markers and secondary traits. We show that under the null hypothesis of no marker-secondary trait association, naïve analyses that ignore ascertainment or stratify on case-control status have proper Type I error rates except when both the marker and secondary trait are independently associated with disease risk. Under the alternative hypothesis, these methods are unbiased when the secondary trait is not associated with disease risk. We also show that inverse-probability-of-sampling-weighted (IPW) regression provides unbiased estimates of marker-secondary trait association. We use simulation to quantify the Type I error, power and bias of naïve and IPW methods. IPW regression has appropriate Type I error in all situations we consider, but has lower power than naïve analyses. The bias for naïve analyses is small provided the marker is independent of disease risk. Considering the majority of tested markers in a GWAS are not associated with disease risk, naïve analyses provide valid tests of and nearly unbiased estimates of marker-secondary trait association. Care must be taken when there is evidence that both the secondary trait and tested marker are associated with the primary disease, a situation we illustrate using an analysis of the relationship between a marker in FGFR2 and mammographic density in a breast cancer case-control sample.

On the adjustment for covariates in genetic association analysis: a novel, simple principle to infer direct causal effects

In genetic association studies, different complex phenotypes are often associated with the same marker. Such associations can be indicative of pleiotropy (i.e. common genetic causes), of indirect genetic effects via one of these phenotypes, or can be solely attributable to non-genetic/environmental links between the traits. To identify the phenotypes with the inducing genetic association, statistical methodology is needed that is able to distinguish between the different causes of the genetic associations. Here, we propose a simple, general adjustment principle that can be incorporated into many standard genetic association tests which are then able to infer whether an SNP has a direct biological influence on a given trait other than through the SNP's influence on another correlated phenotype. Using simulation studies, we show that, in the presence of a non-marker related link between phenotypes, standard association tests without the proposed adjustment can be biased. In contrast to that, the proposed methodology remains unbiased. Its achieved power levels are identical to those of standard adjustment methods, making the adjustment principle universally applicable in genetic association studies. The principle is illustrated by an application to three genome-wide association analyses.

Covariate adjustment in family-based association studies

Family-based tests of association between a candidate locus and a disease evaluate how often a variant allele at the locus is transmitted from parents to offspring. These tests assume that in the absence of association, an affected offspring is equally likely to have inherited either one of the two homologous alleles carried by a parent. However, transmission distortion was documented in families in which the offspring are unselected for phenotype. Moreover, if offspring genotypes are associated with a risk factor for the disease, transmission distortion to affected offspring can occur in the absence of a causal relation between gene and disease risk. We discuss the appropriateness of adjusting for established risk factors when evaluating association in family-based studies. We present methods for adjusting the transmission/disequilibrium test for risk factors when warranted, and we apply them to data on CYP19 (aromatase) genotypes in nuclear families with multiple cases of breast cancer. Simulations show that when genotypes are correlated with risk factors, the unadjusted test statistics have inflated size, while the adjusted ones do not. The covariate-adjusted tests are less powerful than the unadjusted ones, suggesting the need to check the relationship between genotypes and known risk factors to verify that adjustment is needed. The adjusted tests are most useful for data containing a large proportion of families that lack disease-discordant sibships, i.e., data for which multiple logistic regression of matched sibships would have little power. Software for performing the covariate-adjusted tests is available at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HRP/epidemiology/COVTDT.