Phenotypic structure and genetic correlates of adolescent psychiatric symptomatology in versus out of autism
Thomas, T. R.; Kuo, S. S.; Lefebvre, C. H.; Zhang, J.; Havkin, R.; Satterstrom, F. K.; Fu, J. M.; Auwerx, C.; van der Merwe, C.; Choi, K. W.; Talkowski, M. E.; Joshi, G.; Robinson, E. B.
Show abstract
Objective: Mental health challenges are highly prevalent in autism, but the degree to which they are similar in experience and etiology to the general population remains unclear. This study's objective was characterization of phenotypic and genetic architectures of psychiatric symptomatology in versus out-of-autism. Methods: Psychiatric symptoms were evaluated using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in 22,152 children (8-15 years): 11,111 autistic children with verbal abilities from SPARK and 11,041 non-autistic children from ABCD. The CBCL's canonical, population-wide factor structure and genetic associations were compared between cohorts. In parallel, exploratory factor analysis was conducted in SPARK, with resulting dimensions associated with key clinical phenotypes (cognitive ability, co-occurring neuropsychiatric diagnoses), polygenic scores (PGS) for psychiatric disorders, and de novo burden in autism-associated genes. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the canonical structure in ABCD but not in SPARK. Psychiatric PGS associations with canonical CBCL subscales were weaker in SPARK than in ABCD, with the ADHD PGS association to Attention problems lower in SPARK ({beta}=0.05 [CI: 0.04,0.06] than in ABCD ({beta}=0.17 [0.13,0.21]). SPARK exploratory factor analysis replicated canonical internalizing factors while revealing other structural departures, including a distinct Developmental Delays factor and dispersion of social problems across multiple factors. The Developmental Delays factor had the strongest associations with de novo burden and lower cognitive ability but was weakly associated with psychiatric PGS. In contrast, common genetic variation explained larger proportions of variances in somatic and inattentive factors and had stronger PGS associations. Conclusions: Correlation structures and genetic architectures of psychiatric symptoms differed in autism compared to the broader population, emphasizing the need for autism-specific approaches in assessment and treatment.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Examining the bidirectional association between emotion recognition and autistic traits using observational and genetic analyses 94%
- The p factor: Genetic analyses support a general dimension of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence 92%
- Unique prediction of developmental psychopathology from genetic and familial risk 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Patterns of Autism Symptoms: Hidden Structure in the ADOS and ADI-R instruments 94%
- Delineating and validating higher-order dimensions of psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study 94%
- Clinical autism subscales have common genetic liability that is heritable, pleiotropic, and generalizable to the general population 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Current and Lifetime Somatic Symptom Burden Among Transition-aged Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum 94%
- Psychotic symptoms in 16p11.2 copy number variant carriers 94%
- 3-generation family medical histories of mental, neurologic, cardiometabolic, birth defect, asthma, allergy, and autoimmune conditions associated with autism 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dimensional gender diversity is associated with greater polygenic propensity for cognitive performance and interacts with other genetic factors in predicting health outcomes 94%
- Convergent and Divergent Cerebellar Alterations in 22q11.2 Copy Number Variants 93%
- Autism heterogeneity related to preterm birth: multi-ancestry results from the SPARK sample 93%
"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.