Search

The impaired ability to make correct antisaccades (i.e., antisaccade performance) is well documented among schizophrenia subjects, and researchers have successfully demonstrated that antisaccade performance is a valid schizophrenia endophenotype that is useful for genetic studies. However, it is unclear how the ascertainment biases that unavoidably result from recruitment differences in schizophrenia subjects identified in family versus case-control studies may influence patient-control differences in antisaccade performance. To assess the impact of ascertainment bias, researchers from the Consortium on the Genetics of Schizophrenia (COGS) compared antisaccade performance and antisaccade metrics (latency and gain) in schizophrenia and control subjects from COGS-1, a family-based schizophrenia study, to schizophrenia and control subjects from COGS-2, a corresponding case-control study. COGS-2 schizophrenia subjects were substantially older; had lower education status, worse psychosocial function, and more severe symptoms; and were three times more likely to be a member of a multiplex family than COGS-1 schizophrenia subjects. Despite these variations, which were likely the result of ascertainment differences (as described in the introduction to this special issue), the effect sizes of the control-schizophrenia differences in antisaccade performance were similar in both studies (Cohen's d effect size of 1.06 and 1.01 in COGS-1 and COGS-2, respectively). This suggests that, in addition to the robust, state-independent schizophrenia-related deficits described in endophenotype studies, group differences in antisaccade performance do not vary based on subject ascertainment and recruitment factors.

BackgroundNeurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia (SZ) are established and the Consortium on the Genetics of Schizophrenia (COGS) investigated such measures as endophenotypes in family-based (COGS-1) and case-control (COGS-2) studies. By requiring family participation, family-based sampling may result in samples that vary demographically and perform better on neurocognitive measures.MethodsThe Penn computerized neurocognitive battery (CNB) evaluates accuracy and speed of performance for several domains and was administered across sites in COGS-1 and COGS-2. Most tests were included in both studies. COGS-1 included 328 patients with SZ and 497 healthy comparison subjects (HCS) and COGS-2 included 1195 patients and 1009 HCS.ResultsDemographically, COGS-1 participants were younger, more educated, with more educated parents and higher estimated IQ compared to COGS-2 participants. After controlling for demographics, the two samples produced very similar performance profiles compared to their respective controls. As expected, performance was better and with smaller effect sizes compared to controls in COGS-1 relative to COGS-2. Better performance was most pronounced for spatial processing while emotion identification had large effect sizes for both accuracy and speed in both samples. Performance was positively correlated with functioning and negatively with negative and positive symptoms in both samples, but correlations were attenuated in COGS-2, especially with positive symptoms.ConclusionsPatients ascertained through family-based design have more favorable demographics and better performance on some neurocognitive domains. Thus, studies that use case-control ascertainment may tap into populations with more severe forms of illness that are exposed to less favorable factors compared to those ascertained with family-based designs.