Chunk #117 — 9.0 Selective Review of Electrophysiological Biomarkers as Candidate Endophenotypes — 9.1 A review of how well candidate endophenotypes satisfy threshold criteria
in healthy first-degree relatives, such as PFC broadband noise and the feedback positivity. We considered the evidence as “suggestive” if there was evidence of heritability but neither criterion #3 or #4 was met. For us to consider the evidence as “moderate,” a putative endophenotype must meet criteria #3 and #4 or there must be more than one report showing evidence that it meets one or the other. If it meets one of the two criteria, we assigned an “S+.” However, if evidence that a putative endophenotype meets either of these criteria came from the same report that also established its criterion validity, we considered this an “S.” For instance, Iacono (1999) found that electrodermal activity (EDA) was increased in patients with schizophrenia and first-degree relatives. In cases such as this we considered the evidence as merely suggestive (“S”) rather than “S+.” For evidence to be considered persuasive, the putative endophenotype must meet both criteria (#3 and #4) with more than a single empirical report and preferably meta-analysis or narrative review providing evidence relevant to each criterion.
