2017
DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.186
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

School Achievement, IQ, and Risk of Alcohol Use Disorder: A Prospective, Co-Relative Analysis in a Swedish National Cohort

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Objective:Most studies suggest that poor cognitive functioning in adolescence increases risk of alcohol use disorders (AUDs). We seek to clarify the causes of this association. Method: In Swedish individuals born from 1972 to 1990 in whom cognitive functioning was assessed by school achievement at age 16 years (males and females, N = 1,796,048) and by IQ at ages 18-20 (males, N = 554,644), we examined the hazard ratio (HR) for AUD ascertained from public registries. We examined and modeled risk of AU… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
9
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…AUDIT-C was positively genetically correlated with overall health rating, HDL cholesterol concentration, and years of education, findings that are consistent with prior literature showing genetic correlation of these traits with alcohol consumption 7,8,21 . AUD was significantly genetically correlated with 111 traits or diseases, including negative genetic correlations with intelligence, years of education and quitting smoking, and positive genetic correlations with insomnia, ever having smoked and most psychiatric disorders, findings that are consistent with phenotypic associations in the epidemiological literature 3537 and genetic correlations reported from the UKBB and 23andMe GWASs and their meta-analysis 7,8,21 . The opposite genetic correlations seen for some traits may be driven by low-effect variants, as we find close to 100% consistency in the direction of effect for the most significantly associated SNPs for both AUDIT-C and AUD.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…AUDIT-C was positively genetically correlated with overall health rating, HDL cholesterol concentration, and years of education, findings that are consistent with prior literature showing genetic correlation of these traits with alcohol consumption 7,8,21 . AUD was significantly genetically correlated with 111 traits or diseases, including negative genetic correlations with intelligence, years of education and quitting smoking, and positive genetic correlations with insomnia, ever having smoked and most psychiatric disorders, findings that are consistent with phenotypic associations in the epidemiological literature 3537 and genetic correlations reported from the UKBB and 23andMe GWASs and their meta-analysis 7,8,21 . The opposite genetic correlations seen for some traits may be driven by low-effect variants, as we find close to 100% consistency in the direction of effect for the most significantly associated SNPs for both AUDIT-C and AUD.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…AUDIT-C was positively genetically correlated with overall health rating, HDL cholesterol concentration, and years of education, findings that are consistent with prior literature showing genetic correlation of these traits with alcohol consumption 7,8,21 . AUD was significantly genetically correlated with 111 traits or diseases, including negative genetic correlations with intelligence, years of education and quitting smoking, and positive genetic correlations with insomnia, ever having smoked and most psychiatric disorders, findings that are consistent with phenotypic associations in the epidemiological literature 3537 and genetic correlations reported from the UKBB and 23andMe GWASs and their meta-analysis 7,8,21 . Further, in the MVP sample, the AUD PRS was significantly positively associated with tobacco use and multiple psychiatric disorders, whereas the AUDIT-C PRS was not.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…We used conditional logistic regression, with a separate stratum for each case and their control(s), in which we compare AUD in the case (i.e., AUD during pregnancy) with AUD in the controls (i.e., AUD during a non-pregnant period). Model 1 was only a crude model, whereas in model 2 we adjusted for average parental educational [(1) <=9 years, (2) 10-11 years, (3) 12 years or more] and school achievement of the individual (see (28) for how school achievement was defined). Odds ratios between 0 and 1 would indicate reduced risk for AUD during pregnancy (i.e., a protective effect of pregnancy), while odds ratios >1 would indicate increased risk.…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%