An examination of the quality and performance of the Alda scale for classifying lithium response phenotypes

被引:30
作者
Scott, Jan [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Etain, Bruno [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Manchia, Mirko [6 ]
Brichant-Petitjean, Clara [2 ,3 ,7 ]
Geoffroy, Pierre A. [2 ,3 ]
Schulze, Thomas [8 ]
Alda, Martin [9 ,10 ]
Bellivier, Frank [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Amare, A.
Ardau, R.
Backlund, L.
Baune, B.
Barboza, A.
Benabarre, A.
Chaumette, B.
Chen, H.
Chillotti, C.
Clark, S.
Colom, F.
Del Zompo, M.
Dalkner, N.
Dantas, C.
Ferentinos, P.
Garnham, J.
Jamain, S.
Jimenez, E.
Khan, J-P
Kuo, P.
Lavebratt, C.
Maj, M.
Millischer, V.
Monteleone, P.
Pisanu, C.
Potash, J.
Reif, A.
Reininghaus, E.
Schalling, M.
Schofield, P.
Schubert, K.
Severino, G.
Slaney, C.
Smith, D.
Squassina, A.
Tondo, L.
Vieta, E.
Witt, S.
机构
[1] Newcastle Univ, Inst Neurosci, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England
[2] Univ Paris Diderot, Paris, France
[3] INSERM, UMRS1144, Paris, France
[4] GH St Louis Lariboisiere F Widal, AP HP, Dept Psychiat & Med Addictol, Paris, France
[5] Univ Cagliari, Dept Med Sci & Publ Hlth, Sect Psychiat, Cagliari, Italy
[6] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Pharmacol, Halifax, NS, Canada
[7] EPS Maison Blanche, Paris, France
[8] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Univ Hosp, IPPG, Munich, Germany
[9] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Psychiat, Halifax, NS, Canada
[10] Natl Inst Mental Hlth, Klecany, Czech Republic
关键词
Alda scale; clinical phenotypes; clinimetrics; genetics; lithium response; psychometrics; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; BIPOLAR DISORDER; RELIABILITY; ASSOCIATION; PROPHYLAXIS; GUIDELINES; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.1111/bdi.12829
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives The Retrospective Assessment of the Lithium Response Phenotype Scale (Alda scale) is the most widely used clinical measure of lithium response phenotypes. We assess its performance against recommended psychometric and clinimetric standards. Methods We used data from the Consortium for Lithium Genetics and a French study of lithium response phenotypes (combined sample >2500) to assess reproducibility, responsiveness, validity, and interpretability of the A scale (assessing change in illness activity), the B scale, and its items (assessing confounders of response) and the previously established response categories derived from the Total Score for the Alda scale. Results The key findings are that the B scale is vulnerable to error measurement. For example, some items contribute little to overall performance of the Alda scale (eg, B2) and that the B scale does not reliably assess a single construct (uncertainty in response). Machine learning models indicate that it may be more useful to employ an algorithm for combining the ratings of individual B items in a sequence that clarifies the noise to signal ratio instead of using a composite score. Conclusions This study highlights three important topics. First, empirical approaches can help determine which aspects of the performance of any scale can be improved. Second, the B scale of the Alda is best applied as a multidimensional index (identifying several independent confounders of the assessment of response). Third, an integrated science approach to precision psychiatry is vital, otherwise phenotypic misclassifications will undermine the reliability and validity of findings from genetics and biomarker studies.
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 265
页数:11
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] An FA, 1983, ANN INTERN MED, V99, P843
  • [2] A taxonomy for responsiveness
    Beaton, DE
    Bombardier, C
    Katz, JN
    Wright, JG
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 54 (12) : 1204 - 1217
  • [3] Bellivier F, 2017, SCI PRACTICE LITHIUM, P23
  • [4] When a Case Is Not a Case: Effects of Phenotype Misclassification on Power and Sample Size Requirements for the Transmission Disequilibrium Test with Affected Child Trios
    Buyske, Steven
    Yang, Guang
    Matise, Tara C.
    Gordon, Derek
    [J]. HUMAN HEREDITY, 2009, 67 (04) : 287 - 292
  • [5] GADL1 variant and medication adherence in predicting response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder
    Chen, Chih-Ken
    Lee, Chau-Shoun
    Chen, Hsuan-Yu
    Wu, Lawrence Shih-Hsin
    Chang, Jung-Chen
    Liu, Chia-Yih
    Cheng, Andrew Tai-Ann
    [J]. BJPSYCH OPEN, 2016, 2 (05): : 301 - 306
  • [6] Clinimetrics FA, 1987, THEORY EVALUATION SE, P141
  • [7] COPPEN A, 1973, PSYCHIAT NEUROL NEUR, V76, P501
  • [8] When to use agreement versus reliability measures
    de Vet, Henrica C. W.
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Knol, Dirk L.
    Bouter, Lex M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (10) : 1033 - 1039
  • [9] Epskamp S, 2018, PSYCHOL METHODS, V48, P1
  • [10] Epskamp S, 2018, HDB PSYCHOMETRICS, P1