Log In Sign up
The largest database of trusted experimental protocols
> Disorders > Mental or Behavioral Dysfunction > Disruptive Behavior Disorder

Disruptive Behavior Disorder

Disruptive Behavior Disorder: A comprehensive overview of this complex mental health condition, characterized by persistent patterns of disruptive, impulsive, and disruptive behaviors that can interfere with an individual's functioning and development.
Our platform utilizes advanced AI to help researchers and clinicians optimize their work, locating the most relevant protocols and enhancing reproducibility and accuracy.
Explore our innovative solution today and take your Disruptive Behavior Disorder research to new heights.

Most cited protocols related to «Disruptive Behavior Disorder»

1
Comprehensive Mental Health Diagnostic Interview
Cited 24 times
CIDI 3.0 is described in detail elsewhere14 (link) and the modifications of CIDI 3.0 for the NCS-A are described in a companion paper.11 In brief, CIDI 3.0 is a fully-structured research diagnostic interview that is designed to be administered by a trained lay interviewer. CIDI questions for the most part have a yes-no response format. The K-SADS, in comparison, is a semi-structured research diagnostic interview that is designed to be administered by trained clinical interviewers. K-SADS questions to respondents are designed to elicit rich verbal responses that form the basis of interviewer ratings about the presence versus absence of symptoms. The standard K-SADS was modified by deleting disorders not assessed in the NCS-A, focusing on a lifetime time frame, and somewhat streamlining the initial screening section of the interview to include information about respondent endorsement of diagnostic stem questions in the earlier CIDI interview.
The disorders assessed in this version of the K-SADS included six DSM-IV anxiety disorders (panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia without a history of panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobia, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder), three mood disorders (bipolar spectrum disorder, major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder), three disruptive behavior disorders (attention/deficit-hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder), and four substance use disorders (alcohol abuse with or without dependence, illicit drug abuse with or without dependence, alcohol dependence with a history of abuse, illicit drug dependence with a history of abuse). We also considered summary measures of any anxiety disorder, any mood disorder, any disruptive behavior disorder, any substance use disorder, and any disorder. All disorders in both the CIDI and K-SADS were diagnosed using DSM-IV organic exclusions and diagnostic hierarchy rules.
Kessler R.C., Avenevoli S., Green J.G., Gruber M.J., Guyer M., He Y., Jin R., Kaufman J., Sampson N.A., Zaslavsky A.M, & Merikangas K.R. (2009). The National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A): III. Concordance of DSM-IV/CIDI diagnoses with clinical reassessments. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(4), 386-399.
Publication 2009
Abuse, Alcohol Agoraphobia Alcoholic Intoxication, Chronic Anxiety Disorders Bipolar Disorder Conduct Disorder Diagnosis Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Drug Abuse Dysthymic Disorder Illicit Drugs Interviewers Major Depressive Disorder Mood Disorders Oppositional Defiant Disorder Panic Disorder Pets Phobia, Social Phobia, Specific Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Reading Frames Sadness Stem, Plant Substance Use Disorders
2
Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
Cited 13 times
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents And Children5 (link) is a population-based study which investigates a wide range of environmental, genetic and psychosocial influences on the health and development of children and their parents. Figure 1 illustrates participation in ALSPAC up to and including the data gathered from teachers when the children were in school year 3. The 14 541 pregnant mothers recruited into the study between April 1991 and December 1992 had 14 062 live births. At 1 year 13 988 infants were alive and 13 971 at 7 years of age. When compared with 1991 national census data, the ALSPAC sample was found to be similar to the UK population as a whole, having only a slightly higher proportion of married or cohabiting mothers who were owner–occupiers and who had a car in the household. There were also a slightly smaller proportion of mothers from ethnic minority groups.5 (link)
At 7 years 9 months, as part of a study on disruptive behaviour disorders (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and behaviour disorders), teachers in the geographically defined study area (the old county of Avon in the UK) were asked to complete the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA)6 on all the children in their class with a birth date between April 1991 and December 1992. From a total of 10 431 children eligible to be contacted, teachers returned questionnaires for 3975 children whose parents also participated in this survey (current ALSPAC children), and 1140 children who had participated in previous parts of the ALSPAC study but whose parents did not respond to the current survey (previous ALSPAC children) (Fig. 1). The teacher completion was thus 5115/10 431 of eligible children (49%) or 5115/13 971 of all survivors (37%). In addition, teacher data was returned for 4383 children who had never been recruited into the ALSPAC study or had moved into the area after the study had started (never ALSPAC children). The study was approved by the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and local research ethics committees.
Wolke D., Waylen A., Samara M., Steer C., Goodman R., Ford T, & Lamberts K. (2009). Selective drop-out in longitudinal studies and non-biased prediction of behaviour disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(3), 249-256.
Publication 2009
Child Childbirth Child Development Conduct Disorder Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Ethics Committees, Research Ethnicity Ethnic Minorities Genes, vif Households Infant Minority Groups Mothers Parent Survivors
3
Incentivizing Participation in Mental Health Provider Survey
Cited 13 times
This study was conducted as part of the pilot phase of a larger survey project intended to characterize treatment as usual for children and adolescents with anxiety, depression, and disruptive behavior disorders. We used the Tailored Design Method (see Dillman, 2000 ) to develop a seven page survey covering provider demographics, work setting and caseload characteristics, and assessment and treatment strategies used in their practice. It is worth nothing several other aspects of the Tailored Design Method that we used across all conditions, including (a) personally addressed and hand-signed cover letters with first class stamps on both the individually addressed outgoing envelope and the return envelope, (b) unique survey appearance with landscape orientation, gray-scale gradients and photographs of children to increase salience and help the survey stand out from other mail, (c) formatting features designed to help participants complete and return it with ease (e.g., important words were bolded or italicized and each section of the survey was grouped using borders; return address information was placed on both the front and back cover of the survey) and (d) two follow-up mailings including a thank you/reminder postcard sent to the entire sample and a 2nd survey sent to non-respondents, both of which were also personally addressed and hand-signed. In addition, a separate postage-paid postcard was included that respondents could return with their completed address if they wished to receive a summary of the survey findings.
We mailed the survey to 500 mental health providers randomly selected from guild membership lists, 100 from each of five professional organizations (American Counseling Association, ACA; American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, AAMFT; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, AACAP; American Psychological Association, APA; National Association of Social Workers, NASW). Each of these organizations boasts the largest membership of any guild within their respective disciplines and each has procedures in place to obtain mailing lists of random, representative samples of their membership. From each guild, we selected members within the 50 United States who indicated clinical interest or practice with children, adolescents or families. We randomly assigned 20 from each guild organization to one of five incentive conditions: no incentive, feelings magnet (see http://portal.creativetherapystore.com), $1 bill, $2 bill, or $5 bill. We conducted up to three mailings (initial survey with incentive, postcard, follow-up survey) and examined the proportion who responded. We compared response rates using a series of chi square tests for homogeneity. We calculated power to test for differences in response rates across the 5 incentive conditions as 0.96 for the overall chi square test of homogeniety, and ranging from 0.81 to 0.99 for the follow-up comparisons between specific incentives and disciplines, using the criterion effect size w=0.20 (halfway between a “small” and “medium” magnitude of association; Cohen, 1988 ).
Hawley K.M., Cook J.R, & Jensen-Doss A. (2009). Do Noncontingent Incentives Increase Survey Response Rates among Mental Health Providers? A Randomized Trial Comparison. Administration and policy in mental health, 36(5), 343-348.
Publication 2009
Adolescent Anxiety Child Disruptive Behavior Disorder Feelings Marital Therapy Mental Health Psychiatrist Therapies, Family
4
Assessing Bipolar Disorder Traits Across Samples
Cited 11 times
To develop the carved depression and mania scales, secondary analyses pooled nine samples: two clinical youth samples and seven non-clinical adult samples (Supplemental Table 1). Of 741 youths, 83 met strict DSM-IV criteria for BD I, and 118 for other bipolar spectrum diagnoses; 266 for unipolar depression, 204 for ADHD or disruptive behavior disorders without comorbid mood disorder, and 67 with a variety of other diagnoses. The median number of Axis I diagnoses per youth was 3.0. The adult samples were largely students, and Supplemental Table 1 shows that adult modal age was early-mid 20s.
General Behavior Inventory (GBI, Depue et al., 1981 (link)). The GBI identifies lifetime diagnoses of BD as well as syndromal and subsyndromal affective tendencies in clinical and non-clinical populations (Danielson et al., 2003 (link); Depue et al., 1989 (link)). Items cover lifetime propensities to experience depressive symptoms (e.g., “Have you become sad, depressed, or irritable for several days or more without really understanding why?”), and hypomanic symptoms (e.g., “Have there been periods of several days or more when your thinking was so clear and quick that it was much better than most other people's?”). Responses are rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “never or hardly ever” to “very often or almost constantly”. The GBI also includes some Biphasic items to capture tendencies for mood states to vary from extremely high to extremely low. Biphasic and Hypomania items are commonly collapsed into a single scale (the Hypomanic/Biphasic, or Mania scale) which prospectively predicts onset of manic episodes (Alloy et al., 2012 (link)). The GBI Mania and Depressive scale scores display sound psychometric properties across multiple samples including internal reliability alphas exceeding .90, test-retest reliabilities exceeding .70, strong predictive validity, and adequate convergent and discriminant validity across multiple samples (reviewed in Johnson et al., 2008 ; Youngstrom, 2007 ). Exploratory factor analyses typically find two strong factors of depression and hypomanic/biphasic mood, along with various small factors that capture less variance and are not typically scored separately (e.g., Depue et al., 1981 (link); Murray, Goldstone, & Cunningham, 2007).
Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime version (K-SADS-PL;Kaufman et al., 1997 (link)). The KSADS is a commonly used, well-validated interview for establishing bipolar diagnoses among youth. Youths and primary caregivers completed KSADS interviews in the youth samples. Raters were highly trained and inter-rater reliability was sustained throughout the study (kappa for symptom severity ≥ .85 in both samples). Diagnoses were reviewed by either a board certified child psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist. Diagnoses conformed to strict DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I, bipolar II, cyclothymic disorder, and bipolar NOS (typically due to insufficient duration of the index hypo/manic episode).
The youth samples included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS, Young, Briggs, & Meyer, 1978 (link)), which has good inter-rater reliability, correlates with other manic severity measures, and is sensitive to treatment effects; and the Child Depression Rating Scale – Revised (CDRS, Poznanski, Miller, Salguero, & Kelsh, 1984 (link)) to quantify depressive symptom severity. In the youth samples, the primary caregiver completed the Parent-report GBI (P-GBI, Youngstrom, Findling, Danielson, & Calabrese, 2001 (link)) and the Internalizing Problems score on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001 ) about the youth's mood traits, providing a cross-informant perspective.
The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ: Hirschfeld et al., 2000 (link)) is a 15-item self-report measure of hypomanic symptoms: 13 yes/no items cover DSM manic symptoms, the 14th item asks about simultaneous occurrence, and the last item rates impairment. We used a threshold of 7 or more symptoms co-occurring at least once (Miller, Johnson, Kwapil, & Carver, 2011 (link)). The TEMPS-A measured Affective Temperaments, with five rationally derived subscales: Dysthymic, Cyclothymic, Hyperthymic, Irritable, and Anxious Temperament (published alphas from 0.67 to 0.91, Akiskal, Akiskal, Haykal, Manning, & Connor, 2005 (link)). Hyperthymic scales differentiate BD from other mood disorders, and Dysthymic temperament predicts the severity of depression within BD (e.g., Karam et al., 2010 (link)). The 5-item Satisfaction with Life scale (SWL, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985 (link); Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999 ) measured Satisfaction with Life, as both manic and depressive traits are associated with low life satisfaction (Freeman et al., 2009 (link); Murray & Michalak, in press ). BD is associated with an evening chronotype (Wood et al., 2009 (link)) and elevated seasonal variation in mood and behavior (Shin, Schaffer, Levitt, & Boyle, 2005). The Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ, Horne & Ostberg, 1976 (link)) measured chronotype; higher scores indicate greater morningness. The Seasonal Pattern Assessment Questionnaire (SPAQ, Rosenthal, Bradt, & Wehr, 1984 ) assessed seasonality. Creativity has reliable associations with bipolar diagnosis (Murray & Johnson, 2010 (link)). The 90-item Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI, Hocevar, 1979 ) quantified creative products generated during adolescence and adulthood. Respondents rated the frequency of creative behaviors since adolescence on a 4-point scale from “Never” to “5 or more times.”
Youngstrom E.A., Murray G., Johnson S.L, & Findling R.L. (2013). The 7 Up 7 Down Inventory: A 14-item measure of manic and depressive tendencies carved from the General Behavior Inventory. Psychological assessment, 25(4), 1377-1383.
Publication 2013
Adult Alloys Child Chronotype Creativity Cyclothymic Disorder Depressive Symptoms Diagnosis Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Epistropheus Mania Manic Episode Mood Mood Disorders Parent Population Group Psychiatrist Psychologist Psychometrics Sadness Satisfaction Schizophrenia, Childhood Sound Student Syndrome Temperament Unipolar Depression Youth
5
Assessment of Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Children
Cited 10 times
The SDQ is, as mentioned, a brief screening instrument for behavioral and emotional problems in children and adolescents. The SDQ items were initially selected on the basis of relevant concepts as well as factor analysis [32 (link)]. A parent and a teacher form of the SDQ are available for children aged 3–16 years, and a youth report form is available for the age span 11–16 years. The SDQ symptom scales contain 25 items divided into five subscales, namely Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity-Inattention, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behavior. A 3-point Likert-type scale is employed to indicate how each attribute applies to the target child (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true). Some of the items are reversed. A high score on the Prosocial Behavior subscale reflects strength, while high scores on the other four SDQ subscales reflect difficulties. All subscales but Prosocial Behaviors are also summed together to generate the Total Difficulties score. The SDQ also includes an impact scale to score to what extent the child has a problem with emotions, concentration, or with how to get on with other people. The SDQ also contains four questions about chronicity, distress, social impairment, and possible burden to others. The scoring algorithms allow the subscale scores to be prorated if at least three of the five subscale items are complete (http://www.sdqinfo.org). Factor analytic studies have shown mixed results across countries. The five psychological dimensions of the SDQ have been confirmed in studies, among others in Sweden [21 (link)], UK [32 (link)], and Germany [33 (link)]. Exploratory factor analysis of the US NHIS data, has however found that the best-fitting factor solution involved only three dimensions. Those were externalizing, internalizing, and a prosocial dimension [22 (link)].
The Disruptive Behavior Disorders (DBD) rating scale [7 (link)] can be responded to by parents or teachers. The DBD covers the DSM-IV-based symptoms [34 ] for all three disruptive behavior disorders: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD: 18 items), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD: 8 items) and Conduct Disorder (CD: 15 items). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all, 1 = just a little, 2 = pretty much, and 3 = very much). The DBD rating scale includes 45 items. After the revision of the DSM-III-R to DSM-IV [34 ,35 ], three items are no longer coded in the scoring (item 10, 14 and 21). Item 5 (Often initiates physical fights with other members of his or her household) does not correspond to any criteria in either the DSM-III-R or the DSM-IV, and is not coded. The responses on the DBD can be summarized using “symptom count” or “composite scores”. For the present study, composite scores were calculated by adding the items within each subscale [7 (link)]. The internal consistency (polychoric ordinal alpha: Please see Statistical analysis) of the subscales of the DBD varied between .97 and .99. When the internal consistency was calculated for boys versus girls, mothers versus fathers or the Internet versus paper-and-pencil, very small differences emerged, and the range was still within the upper limits (.94 to .99).
Björnsdotter A., Enebrink P, & Ghaderi A. (2013). Psychometric properties of online administered parental strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ), and normative data based on combined online and paper-and-pencil administration. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 40.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2013
Adolescent Boys Child Conduct Disorder Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Emotions Fathers Households Mothers National Health Insurance Oppositional Defiant Disorder Parent Physical Examination Problem Behavior Woman Youth

Most recents protocols related to «Disruptive Behavior Disorder»

1
Efficacy Assessment of AMPH EROS in ADHD
Efficacy assessments were performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of double-blind study medication and had at least one postdose assessment of the primary efficacy variable (SKAMP-C). The SKAMP-C (Wigal and Wigal, 2006 (link); Wigal et al, 1998 (link)) is a 13-item 7-point impairment scale that evaluates manifestations of ADHD in a classroom setting and includes two derivative subscales, attention and deportment (Wigal and Wigal, 2006 (link); Wigal et al, 1998 (link)).
The PERMP is a 5-page timed written test that measures the number of math problems attempted and solved correctly in 10 minutes (Wigal and Wigal, 2006 (link)). The SKAMP-C is utilized in laboratory classroom settings because it is a direct observation scale, as opposed to the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham (Swanson et al, 1983 (link)) or the ADHD-RS, which are rated by parents and caregivers, or by investigators based on an interview with adult caregivers. The SKAMP-C includes symptoms and behaviors that are characteristic of ADHD and also disruptive behavior disorders more broadly. Efficacy data were analyzed according to the treatment to which the subject was randomized.
Efficacy assessments were collected at predose, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose. The primary efficacy outcome was the onset of efficacy for AMPH EROS compared with placebo as assessed by the primary outcome measure, SKAMP-C scores (Childress et al, 2018 (link)). Key secondary efficacy assessments included the SKAMP attention (SKAMP-A) subscale and the SKAMP-deportment subscale (SKAMP-D); and the PERMP-number of problems attempted (PERMP-A) and PERMP-number of problems correct (PERMP-C). Different versions of the PERMP (with differing degrees of difficulty) were administered to subjects based on individual ability as assessed by a math pretest completed by each subject at the baseline visit.
Faraone S.V., Childress A.C., Gomeni R., Rafla E., Kando J.C., Dansie L., Naik P, & Pardo A. (2023). Efficacy of Amphetamine Extended-Release Oral Suspension in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Effect Size Across the Day. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 33(1), 14-19.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Adult Attention Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Parent Pharmaceutical Preparations Placebos
2
Longitudinal Study of Childhood ADHD in Females
The current data were drawn from an ongoing prospective, longitudinal study of females with and without carefully diagnosed childhood ADHD (see Hinshaw, [54 ] for more complete details). This study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) at the University of California, Berkeley. Participants were initially recruited across a metropolitan area from schools, mental health centers, pediatric practices, and through advertisements to participate in research-based, 5-week summer day camps between 1997–1999. Some participants were recruited through the general population whereas others were recruited through the healthcare system. These programs were designed to be enrichment programs featuring classroom and outdoor environments for ecologically valid assessment, rather than intensive therapeutic interventions. All participants and their families underwent a rigorous, multi-step psychodiagnostic assessment process (see below), after which 140 girls with ADHD and 88 age- and ethnicity-matched comparison girls were selected to participate in the childhood program (Wave 1; Mage = 9.6 years, range = 6–12 years).
Following recruitment, all participants were screened for ADHD regardless of if they had already had a pre-established diagnosis. To establish a baseline diagnosis of ADHD, we used the parent-administered Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, 4th ed. (DISC-IV) [55 (link)] and SNAP rating scale [52 (link)], Hinshaw, [54 ] for the diagnostic algorithm). Comparison girls could not meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD on either measure. Some comparison girls met criteria for internalizing disorders (3.4%) or disruptive behavior disorders (6.8%) at baseline, yet our goal was not to match ADHD participants on comorbid conditions but instead to obtain a representative comparison group. Exclusion criteria included intellectual disability, pervasive developmental disorders, psychosis, overt neurological disorder, lack of English spoken at home, and medical problems preventing summer camp participation. The final sample included 228 girls with ADHD-Combined presentation (n = 93) and ADHD-Inattentive presentation (n = 47), plus an age- and ethnicity-matched comparison sample (n = 88). Participants were ethnically diverse (53% White, 27% African American, 11% Latina, 9% Asian American), reflecting the composition of the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990’s. Family income was slightly higher than the median local household income in the mid-1990s, yet income and educational attainment of families were highly variable, ranging from professional families to those receiving public assistance. On average, parents reported being married and living together (65.8%) at the baseline assessment.
Participants were then assessed 5 (Wave 2; Mage = 14.2 years, range = 11–18; 92% retention [data not included from this wave in the present study]), 10 (Wave 3; Mage = 19.6 years, range = 17–24 years; 95% retention), and 16 (Wave 4; Mage = 25.6 years, range = 21–29 years; 93% retention) years later. Data collection included multi-domain, multi-informant assessments, performed in our clinic for most individuals; when necessary, we performed telephone interviews or home visits. We obtained informed consent from all participants (for initial waves: all legal guardians for minors (if age was below 18 years) and parents; for later waves: all participants and parents). Participants received monetary compensation. For additional information see Hinshaw et al. [31 , 56 ], Owens et al. [57 ].
O’Grady S.M, & Hinshaw S.P. (2023). Developmental predictors of young adult borderline personality disorder: a prospective, longitudinal study of females with and without childhood ADHD. BMC Psychiatry, 23, 106.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
African American Asian Americans Child Diagnosis Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Ethnicity Females Households Intellectual Disability Latinas Legal Guardians Muscle Rigidity Nervous System Disorder Parent Pervasive Development Disorders Process Assessment, Health Care Psychotic Disorders Respiratory Diaphragm Retention (Psychology) Therapeutics Visit, Home Woman
3
Disruptive Behavior Disorder Screening Scale
This scale was developed by Turgay [25 ] to screen and rate disruptive behavior disorders. A validity and reliability study for the Turkish population was carried out by Ercan et al. [26 ].
Miniksar D.Y., Cansız M.A., Göçmen A.Y., Kılıç M, & Miniksar Ö.H. (2023). The Effect of Drug Use, Body Mass Index and Blood Pressure on Oxidative Stress Levels in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 21(1), 88-98.
Publication 2023
Disruptive Behavior Disorder
4
Genetic Heritability of Substance Use and Behavioral Traits
The SNP heritability of the 19 GWAS mentioned above (Supplementary Table S2) was estimated using linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC) (44 (link)) (Supplementary Table S3).6 In the case of cocaine dependence, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, cannabis use disorder, opioids dependence, opioids use disorder, ever addicted phenotype, and anxiety, heritability was reported on the liability scale considering the sample and population prevalence of each of them. For the other GWAS, a liability scale could not be used due to the absence of a population prevalence estimate or the use of a continuous scale to define the traits.
A total of 7 GWAS were discarded with a SNP-based heritability estimates h2SNP < 0.05, indicating a low genetic contribution (Supplementary Table S3). In the case of opioids addiction, both summary statistics of opioids dependence and opioids use disorder showed a heritability higher than 5%, but opioids use disorder summary statistics was selected for subsequent analyses given the higher number of individuals included in this study (Supplementary Table S2).
In total, 11 summary statistics from GWAS were selected for subsequent analyses, including 5 studies on SUD [alcohol dependence (45 (link)), cannabis use disorder (CUD) (46 (link)), cocaine dependence (47 (link)), opioids use disorder (OUD) (48 (link)) and a multivariate analysis of three substance use disorders (SUD) (49 (link))], two on aggressive behavior [antisocial behavior (AB) (50 (link)) and disruptive behavior disorders comorbid with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD-DBD) (51 (link))] and four on related behavioral traits (anxiety, irritability, neuroticism and risk taking behavior) (Table 1).
Genetic variants from most of the summary statistics used were filtered out by MAF ≤ 0.01 and info-score for imputation quality ≤0.8. There were three exceptions in which variants with a lower imputation quality could not be filtered out because the specific info-score values were missing: antisocial behavior (info-score > 0.6), risk taking (info-score > 0.4), and SUD.
Antón-Galindo E., Cabana-Domínguez J., Torrico B., Corominas R., Cormand B, & Fernàndez-Castillo N. (2023). The pleiotropic contribution of genes in dopaminergic and serotonergic pathways to addiction and related behavioral traits. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1293663.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Alcoholic Intoxication, Chronic Anxiety Disorders Behavior, Antisocial Cannabis Cannabis Dependence Cocaine Dependence Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Genetic Diversity Genome-Wide Association Study Neuroticism Opiate Addiction Opioid Use Disorder Phenotype Reproduction Substance Use Disorders
5
Transcriptomic Signatures of Substance Use Disorders
We considered all the SNPs located in each DA and 5-HT gene to infer whether the genetically-predicted expression of each DA and 5-HT gene correlates with the GWAS data of the 11 phenotypes of this study (Table 1). These analyses were carried out on MetaXcan [S-PrediXcan (56–58 (link)) and S-MultiXcan (59 (link))] using the summary statistics of each disorder or trait. Prediction elastic-net models were downloaded from PredictDB,8 which were constructed considering SNPs located within 1 Mb upstream of the transcription start site and 1 Mb downstream of the transcription end site of each gene and were trained with RNA-Seq data of 13 GTEx (release V8) brain regions: amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex BA24, caudate, cerebellar hemisphere, cerebellum, cortex, frontal cortex BA9, hippocampus, hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, putamen, spinal cord and substancia nigra. S-PrediXcan was used to analyse the genetically determined expression of genes in each of the 13 brain tissues described above for each of the 11 phenotypes previously selected (Table 1): alcohol dependence (45 (link)), cannabis use disorder (46 (link)), cocaine dependence (47 (link)), opioids use disorder (48 (link)), substance use disorders (49 (link)), antisocial behavior (50 (link)), disruptive behavior disorders comorbid with ADHD (51 (link)), anxiety, irritability, neuroticism, and risk taking behavior. Then, the information across tissues was combined for each phenotype using a multivariate regression with S-MultiXcan, and a multiple-testing FDR correction (5% FDR) was applied for each phenotype considering all the computed genes tested in the analyses.
Antón-Galindo E., Cabana-Domínguez J., Torrico B., Corominas R., Cormand B, & Fernàndez-Castillo N. (2023). The pleiotropic contribution of genes in dopaminergic and serotonergic pathways to addiction and related behavioral traits. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1293663.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Alcoholic Intoxication, Chronic Amygdaloid Body Anxiety Disorders Behavior, Antisocial Brain Brodmann Area 24 Cannabis Cerebellum Cocaine Dependence Cortex, Cerebral Disorder, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disruptive Behavior Disorder Gene Expression Genes Genome-Wide Association Study Gyrus, Anterior Cingulate Hypothalamus Lobe, Frontal Neuroticism Nucleus Accumbens Opioids Phenotype Putamen RNA-Seq Seahorses Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Spinal Cord Substance Use Disorders Substantia Nigra Tissues Transcription, Genetic Transcription Initiation Site

Top products related to «Disruptive Behavior Disorder»

1
Sas 9 by SAS Institute
Sourced in United States, Austria, Japan, Belgium, United Kingdom, Cameroon, China, Denmark, Canada, Israel, New Caledonia, Germany, Poland, India, France, Ireland, Australia
SAS 9.4 is an integrated software suite for advanced analytics, data management, and business intelligence. It provides a comprehensive platform for data analysis, modeling, and reporting. SAS 9.4 offers a wide range of capabilities, including data manipulation, statistical analysis, predictive modeling, and visual data exploration.

More about "Disruptive Behavior Disorder"

Disruptive Behavior Disorder (DBD) is a complex mental health condition characterized by persistent patterns of disruptive, impulsive, and disruptive behaviors that can interfere with an individual's functioning and development.
This condition, also known as Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder, is often seen in children and adolescents and can have lasting impacts on their social, academic, and emotional well-being.
The key subtopics related to DBD include symptoms, causes, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.
Symptoms of DBD may include aggressive or defiant behavior, difficulty following rules, and a lack of empathy or remorse.
Potential causes can include genetic factors, environmental influences, and neurological differences, while risk factors may involve family dynamics, trauma, or underlying mental health conditions.
Diagnosing DBD typically involves a comprehensive evaluation by a mental health professional, who will consider the duration, severity, and impact of the behaviors.
Treatment approaches often involve a combination of therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, family therapy, and in some cases, medication management.
SAS 9.4, a powerful data analytics platform, can be utilized to enhance Disruptive Behavior Disorder research by enabling researchers to analyze large datasets, identify patterns and trends, and develop predictive models to better understand this complex condition.
Through advanced statistical techniques and visualization tools, SAS 9.4 can help researchers and clinicians optimize their work, locate the most relevant protocols, and improve the reproducibility and accuracy of their findings.
Explore the innovative solutions offered by PubCompare.ai, which leverage advanced AI to help researchers and clinicians working in the field of Disruptive Behavior Disorder.
Our platform can assist in locating the most relevant protocols from literature, pre-prints, and patents, while enhancing reproducibility and accuracy to ensure your research is efficient and effective.