Challenges and opportunities of gap score methods for studying psychopathology resilience and vulnerability
Modi, H.; Baranger, D. A.; Balbona, J. V.; Naranjo Rincon, S.; Gorelik, A. J.; Bogdan, R.; Bijsterbosch, J. D.
Show abstract
Background: The widespread prevalence of psychopathology, which affects approximately 50% of the global population, often manifests during adolescence. Understanding why some individuals remain resilient while others experience mental health challenges despite similar environmental risks is essential for developing early interventions. However, past efforts have faced challenges with the retrospective definition of resilience. Here, we aim to address these challenges by quantifying resilience to psychopathology at the individual level. Methods: In the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study(R) (N = 11,868), we utilized gradient-boosted tree regression to predict 2-year follow-up psychopathology from 208 Social Determinants of Health features. We used the "gap score" method--the difference between model-predicted and reported psychopathology--to quantify individual differences in psychopathology resilience and susceptibility, defined as the Resilience-Susceptibility Gap (RS-Gap). We validated the RS-Gap against independent 3-year follow-up clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. Results: Collinearity between gap scores and reported symptoms was high (r=-0.84), requiring further correction. Four bias-correction techniques were implemented and compared. After appropriate bias-correction, greater RS-Gap scores were associated with a higher likelihood of poor academic and social outcomes one year later, suggesting that early adaptation to adversity may carry a latent long-term cost. Conclusions: Dependency between RS-Gap and psychopathology scores is a statistical challenge for gap score resilience methods. Our comparisons demonstrate that correction is mandatory to separate resilience signal from shared variance with psychopathology scores. Findings converged across different bias correction methods, providing a validated framework for using gap scores to identify high-risk developmental trajectories in youth.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic liability to major psychiatric disorders contributes to multi-faceted quality of life outcomes in children and adults 94%
- Genomic Influences on Self-Reported Childhood Maltreatment 94%
- Distinguishing clinical and genetic risk factors for suicidal ideation and behavior in a diverse hospital population 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating the impact of transmitted and non-transmitted psychiatric and neurodevelopmental polygenic scores on youth emotional problems 94%
- Using twin-pairs to assess potential bias in polygenic prediction of externalising behaviours across development 94%
- Working memory and reaction time variability mediate the relationship between polygenic risk and ADHD traits in a general population sample 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Positive End of the Polygenic Score Distribution for ADHD: A Low Risk or a Protective Factor? 94%
- A Multivariate Genome-Wide Association Study Reveals Neural Correlates and Common Biological Mechanisms of Psychopathology Spectra 94%
- Associations Between Polygenic Scores for Cognitive and Non-cognitive Factors of Educational Attainment and Measures of Behavior, Psychopathology, and Neuroimaging in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Examining Differences in the Genetic and Functional Architecture of ADHD Diagnosed in Childhood and Adulthood 94%
- Dimensional gender diversity is associated with greater polygenic propensity for cognitive performance and interacts with other genetic factors in predicting health outcomes 94%
- Acculturative orientations among Hispanic/Latinx caregivers in the ABCD Study: Associations with caregiver and youth mental health and youth brain function 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.