Looking across ascertained and population-based sample types (shaded grey blocks), there were no significant associations between polygenic scores created in one sample type and AUDs predicted in the other (i.e., population-based to ascertained and vice versa). We note that there was a suggestive trend in which all cross-sample predictions between different sample types, save one (ALSPAC to IASPSAD), were in a negative direction with a nominal level of statistical significance (p < .05) but would not be considered significant after correction for multiple testing. Similar patterns were observed for polygenic scores based on the meta-analyses of each sample type, with non-significant levels of prediction for all discovery-validation pairs.
