Abstract
Standardized definitions of suicidality phenotypes, including suicidal ideation (SI), attempt (SA), and death (SD) are a critical step towards improving understanding and comparison of results in suicide research. The complexity of suicidality contributes to heterogeneity in phenotype definitions, impeding evaluation of clinical and genetic risk factors across studies and efforts to combine samples within consortia. Here, we present expert and data-supported recommendations for defining suicidality and control phenotypes to facilitate merging current/legacy samples with definition variability and aid future sample creation.BackgroundStandardized definitions of suicidality phenotypes, including suicidal ideation (SI), attempt (SA), and death (SD) are a critical step towards improving understanding and comparison of results in suicide research. The complexity of suicidality contributes to heterogeneity in phenotype definitions, impeding evaluation of clinical and genetic risk factors across studies and efforts to combine samples within consortia. Here, we present expert and data-supported recommendations for defining suicidality and control phenotypes to facilitate merging current/legacy samples with definition variability and aid future sample creation.A subgroup of clinician researchers and experts from the Suicide Workgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) reviewed existing PGC definitions for SI, SA, SD, and control groups and generated preliminary consensus guidelines for instrument-derived and international classification of disease (ICD) data. ICD lists were validated in two independent datasets (N = 9,151 and 12,394).MethodsA subgroup of clinician researchers and experts from the Suicide Workgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) reviewed existing PGC definitions for SI, SA, SD, and control groups and generated preliminary consensus guidelines for instrument-derived and international classification of disease (ICD) data. ICD lists were validated in two independent datasets (N = 9,151 and 12,394).Recommendations are provided for evaluated instruments for SA and SI, emphasizing selection of lifetime measures phenotype-specific wording. Recommendations are also provided for defining SI and SD from ICD data. As the SA ICD definition is complex, SA code list recommendations were validated against instrument results with sensitivity (range = 15.4% to 80.6%), specificity (range = 67.6% to 97.4%), and positive predictive values (range = 0.59-0.93) reported.ResultsRecommendations are provided for evaluated instruments for SA and SI, emphasizing selection of lifetime measures phenotype-specific wording. Recommendations are also provided for defining SI and SD from ICD data. As the SA ICD definition is complex, SA code list recommendations were validated against instrument results with sensitivity (range = 15.4% to 80.6%), specificity (range = 67.6% to 97.4%), and positive predictive values (range = 0.59-0.93) reported.Best-practice guidelines are presented for the use of existing information to define SI/SA/SD in consortia research. These proposed definitions are expected to facilitate more homogeneous data aggregation for genetic and multisite studies. Future research should involve refinement, improved generalizability, and validation in diverse populations.ConclusionsBest-practice guidelines are presented for the use of existing information to define SI/SA/SD in consortia research. These proposed definitions are expected to facilitate more homogeneous data aggregation for genetic and multisite studies. Future research should involve refinement, improved generalizability, and validation in diverse populations.