We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters to the Editor |

Promoting Measured Genes and Measured Environments: On the Importance of Careful Statistical Analyses and Biological Relevance

Ridha Joober, MD, PhD; Sarojini Sengupta, PhD; Norbert Schmitz, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(3):377-378. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.3.377.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Research testing the interaction between measured genes and measured environments in psychiatric disorders was promoted in a recent review by Moffitt et al1 in the ARCHIVES. In presenting the emerging gene × environment interaction findings, Caspi et al2 cite their finding of an interaction between the genetic variants of monoamine oxidase A conferring low enzymatic activity and childhood maltreatment to increase the risk for violent behavior. Moffitt et al cite one replication of this finding by Foley et al3 that was published in the ARCHIVES. A careful perusal of this latter study, which has now been cited 19 times, shows that it is flawed both in its analyses and interpretation. First, Foley et al argued that the results obtained with logistic regression are likely to be more robust than results obtained within a linear regression framework. However, logistic regression has the disadvantage of collapsing ordinal or count response variables into a dichotomous variable, which may result in loss of information. Ordinal regression, negative binomial regression, or Poisson regression models are robust and more appropriate techniques when analyzing disorder symptom counts.4 Second, although Foley et al favored logistic over linear regression to avoid false-positive interactions due to scaling artifacts (heteroscedasticity), they did not assess or report the fit of their model. The presence of zero or small cell counts in interaction terms (as evident from Table 2 in the Foley et al article) may cause numerical problems in the modeling stage of the analysis.5 Using the raw data provided in the Foley et al Table 2, we found that the logistic regression model presented has poor fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, χ24 = 8.9; P = .06). However, model fit improved when we grouped categories 2, 3, and 4 of environmental adversity and used 3 (0, 1, and 2-4) instead of 5 categories (χ23 = 5.5; P = .14). However, the interaction between monoamine oxidase A and environmental adversity was nonsignificant (P = .36, 2-sided test). This is not surprising and could have been suspected simply by noticing that too many cells (7 [35%] of 20) in Table 2 had between 0 and 4 observations. It is also surprising to see the misleading Figure published in the highly reputed ARCHIVES, where a strong visual effect of interaction is in fact due to 1 observation made on a sample size of n = 1 (1/1 = 100%!). Finally, in this study, the monoamine oxidase A genotypes conferring low enzymatic activity are associated with a decreased risk of antisocial behavior whereas the same genotypes in combination with environmental adversity are associated with the opposite effect. In contradiction with the principal of parsimony, Foley et al interpreted this observation as an important finding indicating the complicated nature of psychiatric genetics. This may simply reflect the lack of rigor in the application of statistical methods to complex psychiatric disorders.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

4 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...