Genetic susceptibility for bipolar disorder and response to antidepressants in major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high heterogeneity of response to antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD) makes individual treatment outcomes currently unpredictable. It has been suggested that resistance to antidepressant treatment might be due to undiagnosed bipolar disorder or bipolar spectrum features. Here, we investigate the relationship between genetic susceptibility for bipolar disorder and response to treatment with antidepressants in MDD. Polygenic scores indexing risk for bipolar disorder were derived from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Bipolar Disorder whole genome association study. Linear regressions tested the effect of polygenic risk scores for bipolar disorder on proportional reduction in depression severity in two large samples of individuals with MDD, treated with antidepressants, NEWMEDS (n=1,791) and STAR*D (n=1,107). There was no significant association between polygenic scores for bipolar disorder and response to treatment with antidepressants. Our data indicate that molecular measure of genetic susceptibility to bipolar disorder does not aid in understanding non-response to antidepressants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".