Binary (yes/no) measures of disorder status in relatives often include individuals who are currently negative but will develop the disorder later in life. This censoring can bias estimates of resemblance and correlation between relatives because observed unaffected status may not reflect true lifetime liability. The authors frame the problem as one where age at assessment truncates observed onset information, complicating population estimates of the relationship between an individual's underlying liability to disorder and the timing of onset.
To address this bias, the authors develop a model that explicitly links an individual's liability to disorder with their age at onset. The model is designed for paired-relative data, exploiting the correlation in liability between relatives to identify the covariance between liability and onset timing even when onset information is missing for those who remain unaffected at assessment. The motivation includes clinical observations that earlier onset frequently corresponds to greater severity and worse outcomes, making a correlation between liability and age at onset plausible in many disorders.
The model is implemented as a mixture distribution that represents the joint behavior of liability and age at onset across pairs of relatives. Because age at onset is observed only among those who have experienced the event, conventional individual-level models may not separate liability and timing effects when censoring is present. By using a relative-pair framework, where concordant and discordant pairs provide different information about the distribution of onset ages conditional on shared liability, the mixture approach enables estimation of the covariance between liability and age at onset.
The authors contrast their method with Cox Proportional Hazards models. In Cox models, liability and timing are often treated as components of a single hazard dimension; the model presented here treats liability to disorder and onset timing as associated but distinct constructs. The mixture-distribution approach therefore addresses a different parameter: the covariance between liability and age at onset in the presence of censoring and family resemblance, rather than modeling a single hazard surface.
The model was applied to data on cannabis use drawn from the Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development. The twin-pair design provides correlated liabilities between relatives, permitting the identification of the covariance between liability and age at onset despite censoring of onset among some participants. The study authors emphasize that data from non-related individuals typically cannot estimate this covariance because they lack the required between-person liability correlation structure.
In the application to cannabis use, the estimated association between age at onset and liability to use was negative, reported as −0.212. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate was −0.263 to −0.152, which does not include zero, indicating a statistically measurable negative association in this sample. The negative sign implies that earlier onset is associated with higher underlying liability in this dataset.
All data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request to the authors via the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics repository (https://vipbg.vcu.edu/vipbg/Articles/). The research received ethical approval from the Ethics committee/IRB of Virginia Commonwealth University (MODCR00000036/ HM20025077). The authors declared no competing interests. Funding for the project included support from NIDA/NIH (5U01DA051037-07).
The mixture-distribution model provides a framework to estimate covariance between liability and age at onset in censored family samples, leveraging concordant and discordant relative pairs to extract information unavailable from unrelated individuals. This permits investigation of clinically relevant hypotheses—such as whether earlier onset signals greater liability—while accounting for censoring. The source is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed; the manuscript states that the results should not be used to guide clinical practice. Specific implementation details, simulation results, robustness checks, and broader applicability to other disorders beyond the presented cannabis-use example are described in the full preprint. For details not reported in the abstracted source text, readers should consult the full manuscript and associated data/code links provided by the authors.