and AUDIT-P (but not AUDIT-C; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2018), we hypothesized that AUDIT-P PRS would be more closely related to liability to AUD than would AUDIT-C PRS, which would be more closely related to aspects of alcohol consumption (e.g., regular consumption, units per week). We also hypothesized that associations with AUDIT-C would be stronger in the youngest sample while the AUDIT-P would be more predictive of drinking in older, ascertained samples in which problem drinking is more established. While there have been some recent studies examining the genetic overlap between alcohol consumption and indices of problem drinking (e.g., Johnson et al., 2019), none have yet compared the performance of consumption (AUDIT-C) versus problem drinking (AUDIT-P) PRS across multiple samples. Taken together, the current analyses demonstrate how genetic findings derived from a simple and fast screening tool could serve to outline the polygenic underpinnings of different stages of alcohol use and problems in diversely ascertained samples.
