Towards the implementation of<i>CYP2D6</i>and<i>CYP2C19</i>genotypes in clinical practice: Update and report from a pharmacogenetic service clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic testing may help to improve treatment outcomes in order to avoid non-response or severe side effects to psychotropic medication. Most robust data have been obtained for gene variants in CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 enzymes for antipsychotics and antidepressant treatment. We reviewed original articles indexed in PubMed from 2008-2013 on CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 gene variants and treatment outcome to antidepressant or antipsychotic medication. We have started providing CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotype information to physicians and conducted a survey where preliminary results are reported. Studies provided mixed results regarding the impact of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 gene variation on treatment response. Plasma levels were mostly found associated with CYP metabolizer status. Higher occurrence/severity of side effects were reported in non-extensive CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 metabolizers. Results showed that providing genotypic information is feasible and generally well accepted by both patients and physicians. Although currently available studies are limited by small sample sizes and infrequent plasma drug level assessment, research to date indicates that CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 testing may be beneficial particularly for non-extensive metabolizing patients. In summary, clinical assessment of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 metabolizer status is feasible, well accepted and optimizes drug treatment in psychiatry.
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 | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".