Although the link between alcohol involvement and behavioral phenotypes (e.g. impulsivity, negative affect, executive function [EF]) is well-established, the directionality of these associations, specificity to stages of alcohol involvement, and extent of shared genetic liability remain unclear. We estimate longitudinal associations between transitions among alcohol milestones, behavioral phenotypes, and indices of genetic risk.

Data came from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (n = 3681; ages 11–36). Alcohol transitions (first: drink, intoxication, alcohol use disorder [AUD] symptom, AUD diagnosis), internalizing, and externalizing phenotypes came from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism. EF was measured with the Tower of London and Visual Span Tasks. Polygenic scores (PGS) were computed for alcohol-related and behavioral phenotypes. Cox models estimated associations among PGS, behavior, and alcohol milestones.

Externalizing phenotypes (e.g. conduct disorder symptoms) were associated with future initiation and drinking problems (hazard ratio (HR)⩾1.16). Internalizing (e.g. social anxiety) was associated with hazards for progression from first drink to severe AUD (HR⩾1.55). Initiation and AUD were associated with increased hazards for later depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation (HR⩾1.38), and initiation was associated with increased hazards for future conduct symptoms (HR = 1.60). EF was not associated with alcohol transitions. Drinks per week PGS was linked with increased hazards for alcohol transitions (HR⩾1.06). Problematic alcohol use PGS increased hazards for suicidal ideation (HR = 1.20).

Behavioral markers of addiction vulnerability precede and follow alcohol transitions, highlighting dynamic, bidirectional relationships between behavior and emerging addiction.

Therapeutics targeting frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are entering clinical trials. There are challenges to conducting these studies, including the relative rarity of the disease. Remote assessment tools could increase access to clinical research and pave the way for decentralized clinical trials. We developed the ALLFTD Mobile App, a smartphone application that includes assessments of cognition, speech/language, and motor functioning. The objectives were to determine the feasibility and acceptability of collecting remote smartphone data in a multicenter FTD research study and evaluate the reliability and validity of the smartphone cognitive and motor measures.

A diagnostically mixed sample of 207 participants with FTD or from familial FTD kindreds (CDR®+NACC-FTLD=0 [n=91]; CDR®+NACC-FTLD=0.5 [n=39]; CDR®+NACC-FTLD>1 [n=39]; unknown [n=38]) were asked to remotely complete a battery of tests on their smartphones three times over two weeks. Measures included five executive functioning (EF) tests, an adaptive memory test, and participant experience surveys. A subset completed smartphone tests of balance at home (n=31) and a finger tapping test (FTT) in the clinic (n=11). We analyzed adherence (percentage of available measures that were completed) and user experience. We evaluated Spearman-Brown split-half reliability (100 iterations) using the first available assessment for each participant. We assessed test-retest reliability across all available assessments by estimating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). To investigate construct validity, we fit regression models testing the association of the smartphone measures with gold-standard neuropsychological outcomes (UDS3-EF composite [Staffaroni et al., 2021], CVLT3-Brief Form [CVLT3-BF] Immediate Recall, mechanical FTT), measures of disease severity (CDR®+NACC-FTLD Box Score & Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Rating Scale [PSPRS]), and regional gray matter volumes (cognitive tests only).

Participants completed 70% of tasks. Most reported that the instructions were understandable (93%), considered the time commitment acceptable (97%), and were willing to complete additional assessments (98%). Split-half reliability was excellent for the executive functioning (r’s=0.93-0.99) and good for the memory test (r=0.78). Test-retest reliabilities ranged from acceptable to excellent for cognitive tasks (ICC: 0.70-0.96) and were excellent for the balance (ICC=0.97) and good for FTT (ICC=0.89). Smartphone EF measures were strongly associated with the UDS3-EF composite (ß's=0.6-0.8, all p<.001), and the memory test was strongly correlated with total immediate recall on the CVLT3-BF (ß=0.7, p<.001). Smartphone FTT was associated with mechanical FTT (ß=0.9, p=.02), and greater acceleration on the balance test was associated with more motor features (ß=0.6, p=0.02). Worse performance on all cognitive tests was associated with greater disease severity (ß's=0.5-0.7, all p<.001). Poorer performance on the smartphone EF tasks was associated with smaller frontoparietal/subcortical volume (ß's=0.4-0.6, all p<.015) and worse memory scores with smaller hippocampal volume (ß=0.5, p<.001).

These results suggest remote digital data collection of cognitive and motor functioning in FTD research is feasible and acceptable. These findings also support the reliability and validity of unsupervised ALLFTD Mobile App cognitive tests and provide preliminary support for the motor measures, although further study in larger samples is required.

Researchers have identified genetic and neural risk factors for externalizing behaviors. However, it has not yet been determined if genetic liability is conferred in part through associations with more proximal neurophysiological risk markers.

Participants from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, a large, family-based study of alcohol use disorders were genotyped and polygenic scores for externalizing (EXT PGS) were calculated. Associations with target P3 amplitude from a visual oddball task (P3) and broad endorsement of externalizing behaviors (indexed via self-report of alcohol and cannabis use, and antisocial behavior) were assessed in participants of European (EA; N = 2851) and African ancestry (AA; N = 1402). Analyses were also stratified by age (adolescents, age 12–17 and young adults, age 18–32).

The EXT PGS was significantly associated with higher levels of externalizing behaviors among EA adolescents and young adults as well as AA young adults. P3 was inversely associated with externalizing behaviors among EA young adults. EXT PGS was not significantly associated with P3 amplitude and therefore, there was no evidence that P3 amplitude indirectly accounted for the association between EXT PGS and externalizing behaviors.

Both the EXT PGS and P3 amplitude were significantly associated with externalizing behaviors among EA young adults. However, these associations with externalizing behaviors appear to be independent of each other, suggesting that they may index different facets of externalizing.

Studies suggest that alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders have distinct genetic backgrounds.

We examined whether polygenic risk scores (PRS) for consumption and problem subscales of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C, AUDIT-P) in the UK Biobank (UKB; N = 121 630) correlate with alcohol outcomes in four independent samples: an ascertained cohort, the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA; N = 6850), and population-based cohorts: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC; N = 5911), Generation Scotland (GS; N = 17 461), and an independent subset of UKB (N = 245 947). Regression models and survival analyses tested whether the PRS were associated with the alcohol-related outcomes.

In COGA, AUDIT-P PRS was associated with alcohol dependence, AUD symptom count, maximum drinks (R2 = 0.47–0.68%, p = 2.0 × 10−8–1.0 × 10−10), and increased likelihood of onset of alcohol dependence (hazard ratio = 1.15, p = 4.7 × 10−8); AUDIT-C PRS was not an independent predictor of any phenotype. In ALSPAC, the AUDIT-C PRS was associated with alcohol dependence (R2 = 0.96%, p = 4.8 × 10−6). In GS, AUDIT-C PRS was a better predictor of weekly alcohol use (R2 = 0.27%, p = 5.5 × 10−11), while AUDIT-P PRS was more associated with problem drinking (R2 = 0.40%, p = 9.0 × 10−7). Lastly, AUDIT-P PRS was associated with ICD-based alcohol-related disorders in the UKB subset (R2 = 0.18%, p < 2.0 × 10−16).

AUDIT-P PRS was associated with a range of alcohol-related phenotypes across population-based and ascertained cohorts, while AUDIT-C PRS showed less utility in the ascertained cohort. We show that AUDIT-P is genetically correlated with both use and misuse and demonstrate the influence of ascertainment schemes on PRS analyses.