酒精使用障碍的密度和二分类家族史测量作为行为和神经表型的预测因子：跨性别和种族/民族的比较研究。,Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

酒精使用障碍的密度和二分类家族史测量作为行为和神经表型的预测因子：跨性别和种族/民族的比较研究。
Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research ( IF 3.2 ) Pub Date : 2020-02-18 , DOI: 10.1111/acer.14280
Gayathri Pandey ₁ , Michael J Seay ₂ , Jacquelyn L Meyers ₁ , David B Chorlian ₁ , Ashwini K Pandey ₁ , Chella Kamarajan ₁ , Morton Ehrenberg ₁ , Daniel Pitti ₁ , Sivan Kinreich ₁ , Stacey Subbie-Saenz de Viteri ₁ , Laura Acion ₃ , Andrey Anokhin ₄ , Lance Bauer ₅ , Grace Chan ₅ , Howard Edenberg ₆ , Victor Hesselbrock ₅ , Samuel Kuperman ₇ , Vivia V McCutcheon ₄ , Kathleen K Bucholz ₄ , Marc Schuckit ₈ , Bernice Porjesz ₁

Affiliation

背景家族史 (FH) 是酒精使用障碍 (AUD) 发展的重要风险因素。FH 的各种二分法和密度测量已被用于预测酒精结果；然而，缺乏对这些 FH 措施的系统比较。我们比较了 4 种密度和 4 种常用的二分法 FH 测量值，并检查了性别和种族/民族与经常饮酒的开始年龄、顶叶 P3 振幅与视觉目标的关联以及发生 AUD 的可能性的变化。方法酒精中毒遗传学合作研究 (COGA) 的数据用于计算密度和二分法。该研究仅包括通过使用酒精中毒遗传学半结构化评估 (SSAGA) 直接访谈获得的具有 DSM-5 AUD 诊断信息的受试者及其家庭成员。接受者操作特征曲线下的面积用于比较 FH 测量在对 DSM-5 AUD 诊断进行分类时的诊断准确性。Logistic 和线性回归模型用于检查 FH 测量与酒精结果的关联。结果密度测量在对 AUD 诊断进行分类时具有更高的诊断准确性，而二分法测量的诊断准确性更接近随机机会。二分法和密度测量均与 AUD 的可能性、经常饮酒的早期发作和低顶叶 P3 振幅显着相关，但密度测量始终呈现出更强大的关联。此外，观察到这些关联的变化，因此在男性（与女性）和白人（与黑人）之间，酒精结果与密度（与二分法）测量的关联在幅度上更大。结论密度（相对于二分法）测量似乎与酒精结果有更密切的关联。然而，二分法和密度 FH 测量与不同酒精结果（行为与神经）的关联因性别和种族/民族而异。这些发现对于检查 AUD 的 FH 的酒精研究具有很大的适用性。二分）措施的量级更大。结论密度（相对于二分法）测量似乎与酒精结果有更密切的关联。然而，二分法和密度 FH 测量与不同酒精结果（行为与神经）的关联因性别和种族/民族而异。这些发现对于检查 AUD 的 FH 的酒精研究具有很大的适用性。二分）措施的量级更大。结论密度（相对于二分法）测量似乎与酒精结果有更密切的关联。然而，二分法和密度 FH 测量与不同酒精结果（行为与神经）的关联因性别和种族/民族而异。这些发现对于检查 AUD 的 FH 的酒精研究具有很大的适用性。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

Density and Dichotomous Family History Measures of Alcohol Use Disorder as Predictors of Behavioral and Neural Phenotypes: A Comparative Study Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND Family history (FH) is an important risk factor for the development of alcohol use disorder (AUD). A variety of dichotomous and density measures of FH have been used to predict alcohol outcomes; yet, a systematic comparison of these FH measures is lacking. We compared 4 density and 4 commonly used dichotomous FH measures and examined variations by gender and race/ethnicity in their associations with age of onset of regular drinking, parietal P3 amplitude to visual target, and likelihood of developing AUD. METHODS Data from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) were utilized to compute the density and dichotomous measures. Only subjects and their family members with DSM-5 AUD diagnostic information obtained through direct interviews using the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA) were included in the study. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FH measures at classifying DSM-5 AUD diagnosis. Logistic and linear regression models were used to examine associations of FH measures with alcohol outcomes. RESULTS Density measures had greater diagnostic accuracy at classifying AUD diagnosis, whereas dichotomous measures presented diagnostic accuracy closer to random chance. Both dichotomous and density measures were significantly associated with likelihood of AUD, early onset of regular drinking, and low parietal P3 amplitude, but density measures presented consistently more robust associations. Further, variations in these associations were observed such that among males (vs. females) and Whites (vs. Blacks), associations of alcohol outcomes with density (vs. dichotomous) measures were greater in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS Density (vs. dichotomous) measures seem to present more robust associations with alcohol outcomes. However, associations of dichotomous and density FH measures with different alcohol outcomes (behavioral vs. neural) varied across gender and race/ethnicity. These findings have great applicability for alcohol research examining FH of AUD.

更新日期：2020-03-27

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊最新论文

全部期刊列表>>