Improving the validity of FH-RDC diagnosis of major affective disorder in uninterviewed relatives in family studies: a model based approach.
Improving the validity of FH-RDC diagnosis of major affective disorder in uninterviewed relatives in family studies: a model based approach.
复制标题
提高家庭研究中未经访谈的亲属中 FH-RDC 对主要情感障碍诊断的有效性：基于模型的方法。
DOI：
10.1016/0022-3956(88)90034-9
复制
发表时间：
1988
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Endicott,J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lavori,PW;Keller,MB;Endicott,J
对来自NIMH抑郁症心理生物学合作研究（临床）的4806名情感疾病先证者亲属的家族史和主要情感障碍的家族学诊断的分析表明，家族史大大低估了未访谈亲属的情感障碍发生率。讨论了这些低估对使用家族史方法进行家庭和遗传学分析的影响，并开发了具有更好统计特性的其他估计。使用基于模型的直接调整方法，所有亲属（访谈和未访谈）的主要情感障碍率估计为32%，而共识（标准）方法为25%，该方法使用家族史- rdc访谈与一个或多个家庭成员进行访谈，对所有未访谈的亲属进行诊断。这种差异（超过10个标准误差）是由于未接受采访的亲属估计的发病率要高得多（28%比14%）。FH-RDC不敏感的来源分析被用来解释观察到的诊断率和估算诊断率之间的差异。
Analysis of family history and family study diagnoses of major affective disorder in 4806 relatives of affectively ill probands from the NIMH Collaborative Study of the Psychobiology of Depression (Clinical) suggests that rates of disorder in uninterviewed relatives are greatly underestimated by family history. The implications of these underestimates for family and genetics analyses using the family history method are discussed, and other estimates are developed that have better statistical properties. Using the Model Based Direct Adjustment method, the rate of major affective disorder in all relatives (interviewed and uninterviewed) is estimated to be 32%, compared to 25% by the consensus (standard) method, which uses the Family History-RDC interview with one or more family members to make diagnoses on all uninterviewed relatives. This difference (over ten standard errors) is due to the much higher rate of illness estimated for the uninterviewed relatives (28% compared to 14%). Analysis of the sources of insensitivity of the FH-RDC is used to explain the difference between observed and imputed diagnosis rates.