ReviewMolecular psychiatry2025
Assessment and ascertainment in psychiatric molecular genetics: challenges and opportunities for cross-disorder research.
Review in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polygenic Risk Score for Adult Idiopathic Hydrocele Testis: Susceptibility and Severity in a Japanese Cohort.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Cross-disorder comparison of brain structures among 4836 individuals with mental disorders and controls utilizing danish population-based clinical MRI scans.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Integrative multi-omics reveals MHC class II-mediated neuroinflammation and systemic metabolic dysregulation as transdiagnostic drivers in major brain disorders.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- The neurodevelopmental spectrum: phenotypic architecture, etiology, predictive utility, and specificity across development.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Polygenic scores in psychiatric research and clinical practice.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
- Moderating the Heritability of Body Mass Index by Age and Sex With Genomic Data.Genetic epidemiology · 2026Article
- The predicament of heritable confounders.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Specificity of Polygenic Scores for Psychiatric Disorders Beyond Transdiagnostic Genetic Risk.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Defining suicidality phenotypes for genetic studies: perspectives of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Suicide Working Group.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Review
- Oxidative Stress and Psychiatric Symptoms in Wilson's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Transdiagnostic Polygenic Risk Models for Psychopathology and Comorbidity: Cross-Ancestry Analysis in themedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Identifying gene-environment interactions across genome-wide, twin, and polygenic risk score approaches.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Editorial: Brain pathology and rehabilitation mechanisms of neuromodulation in psychiatric disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.