Differentiating Medicated Patients Suffering from Major Depressive Disorder from Healthy Controls by Spot Urine Measurement of Monoamines and Steroid Hormones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disorder. Currently, there is no objective, cost-effective and non-invasive method to measure biological markers related to the pathogenesis of MDD. Previous studies primarily focused on urinary metabolite markers which are not proximal to the pathogenesis of MDD. Herein, we compare urinary monoamines, steroid hormones and the derived ratios amongst MDD when compared to healthy controls. Methods: Morning urine samples of medicated patients suffering from MDD (n = 47) and healthy controls (n = 41) were collected. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed to measure five biomarkers: cortisol, dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and sulphate derivative of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEAS). The mean urinary levels and derived ratios of monoamines and steroid hormones were compared between patients and controls to identify potential biomarkers. The receiver operative characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of potential biomarkers. Results: Medicated patients with MDD showed significantly higher spot urine ratio of DHEAS/serotonin (1.56 vs. 1.19, p = 0.004) and lower ratio of serotonin/dopamine (599.71 vs. 888.60, p = 0.008) than healthy controls. A spot urine serotonin/dopamine ratio cut-off of >667.38 had a sensitivity of 73.2% and specificity of 51.1%. Conclusions: Our results suggest that spot urine serotonin/dopamine ratio can be used as an objective diagnostic method for adults with MDD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".