RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Psychosis-associated diagnostic codes are increasingly being utilized as case definitions for electronic health record (EHR)-based algorithms to predict and detect psychosis. However, data on the validity of psychosis-related diagnostic codes is limited. We evaluated the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for psychosis. STUDY DESIGN: Using EHRs at 3 health systems, ICD codes comprising primary psychotic disorders and mood disorders with psychosis were grouped into 5 higher-order groups. 1133 records were sampled for chart review using the full EHR. PPVs (the probability of chart-confirmed psychosis given ICD psychosis codes) were calculated across multiple treatment settings. STUDY RESULTS: PPVs across all diagnostic groups and hospital systems exceeded 70%: Mass General Brigham 0.72 [95% CI 0.68-0.77], Boston Children's Hospital 0.80 [0.75-0.84], and Boston Medical Center 0.83 [0.79-0.86]. Schizoaffective disorder PPVs were consistently the highest across sites (0.80-0.92) and major depressive disorder with psychosis were the most variable (0.57-0.79). To determine if the first documented code captured first-episode psychosis (FEP), we excluded cases with prior chart evidence of a diagnosis of or treatment for a psychotic illness, yielding substantially lower PPVs (0.08-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the first documented psychosis diagnostic code accurately captured true episodes of psychosis but was a poor index of FEP. These data have important implications for the case definitions used in the development of risk prediction models designed to predict or detect undiagnosed psychosis.
RESUMO
Background and Hypothesis: Early detection of psychosis is critical for improving outcomes. Algorithms to predict or detect psychosis using electronic health record (EHR) data depend on the validity of the case definitions used, typically based on diagnostic codes. Data on the validity of psychosis-related diagnostic codes is limited. We evaluated the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for psychosis. Study Design: Using EHRs at three health systems, ICD codes comprising primary psychotic disorders and mood disorders with psychosis were grouped into five higher-order groups. 1,133 records were sampled for chart review using the full EHR. PPVs (the probability of chart-confirmed psychosis given ICD psychosis codes) were calculated across multiple treatment settings. Study Results: PPVs across all diagnostic groups and hospital systems exceeded 70%: Massachusetts General Brigham 0.72 [95% CI 0.68-0.77], Boston Children's Hospital 0.80 [0.75-0.84], and Boston Medical Center 0.83 [0.79-0.86]. Schizoaffective disorder PPVs were consistently the highest across sites (0.80-0.92) and major depressive disorder with psychosis were the most variable (0.57-0.79). To determine if the first documented code captured first-episode psychosis (FEP), we excluded cases with prior chart evidence of a diagnosis of or treatment for a psychotic illness, yielding substantially lower PPVs (0.08-0.62). Conclusions: We found that the first documented psychosis diagnostic code accurately captured true episodes of psychosis but was a poor index of FEP. These data have important implications for the development of risk prediction models designed to predict or detect undiagnosed psychosis.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Understanding complex influences on mental health problems in young people is needed to inform early prevention strategies. Both genetic and environmental factors are known to influence youth mental health, but a more comprehensive picture of their interplay, including wide-ranging environmental exposures - that is, the exposome - is needed. We perform an integrative analysis of genomic and exposomic data in relation to internalizing and externalizing symptoms in a cohort of 4,314 unrelated youth from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. METHODS: Using novel GREML-based approaches, we model the variance in internalizing and externalizing symptoms explained by additive and interactive influences from the genome (G) and modeled exposome (E) consisting of up to 133 variables at the family, peer, school, neighborhood, life event, and broader environmental levels, including genome-by-exposome (G × E) and exposome-by-exposome (E × E) effects. RESULTS: A best-fitting integrative model with G, E, and G × E components explained 35% and 63% of variance in youth internalizing and externalizing symptoms, respectively. Youth in the top quintile of model-predicted risk accounted for the majority of individuals with clinically elevated symptoms at follow-up (60% for internalizing; 72% for externalizing). Of note, different domains of environmental exposures were most impactful for internalizing (life events) and externalizing (contextual including family, school, and peer-level factors) symptoms. In addition, variance explained by G × E contributions was substantially larger for externalizing (33%) than internalizing (13%) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced statistical genetic methods in a longitudinal cohort of youth can be leveraged to address fundamental questions about the role of 'nature and nurture' in developmental psychopathology.