Background: Diagnoses in psychiatric research can be derived from various sources. This study assesses the validity of a self-reported clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia. Methods: The study included 3,029 clinically ascertained participants with schizophrenia or psychotic disorders diagnosed by self-report and/or research interview and 1,453 UK Biobank participants with self-report and/or medical record diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder depressed-type (SA-D). We assessed positive predictive values (PPV) of self-reported clinical diagnoses against research interview and medical record diagnoses. We compared polygenic risk scores (PRS) and phenotypes across diagnostic groups, and compared the variance explained by schizophrenia PRS to samples in the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC). Results: In the clinically ascertained sample, the PPV of self-reported schizophrenia to a research diagnosis of schizophrenia was 0.70, which increased to 0.81 when benchmarked against schizophrenia or SA-D. In UK Biobank, the PPV of self-reported schizophrenia to a medical record diagnosis was 0.74. Compared to self-report participants, those with a research diagnosis were younger and more likely to have a high school qualification (clinically ascertained sample) and those with a medical record diagnosis were less likely to be employed or have a high school qualification (UK Biobank). Schizophrenia PRS did not differ between participants that had a diagnosis from self-report, research diagnosis or medical record diagnosis. Polygenic liability r2, for all diagnosis definitions, fell within the distribution of PGC schizophrenia cohorts. Conclusions: Self-report measures of schizophrenia are justified in research to maximise sample size and representativeness, although within sample validation of diagnoses is recommended.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

JTRW, MCOD and MJO received a research grant to Cardiff University from Takeda Pharmaceuticals that funded this work and GWs research position. This work was supported by the following grants: Medical Research Council Program (MR/P005748/1), DATAMIND (MR/W014386/1) and a grant from NIH (Award U01MH109514).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

NCMH and CardiffCOGS received approval from Health Research Authority and Wales Research Ethics Committee (REC) 2 (NCMH REC reference: 16/WA/0323), and Southeast Wales REC (CardiffCOGS REC reference: 07/WSE03/110). All participants provided written informed consent. Ethical approval was granted to the UK Biobank by the Northwest Multi-Centre Ethics Committee. This study was conducted under UK Biobank project number 13310.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

UK Biobank data is available upon application to them. NCMH data is available upon request.