MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803835540 · doi:10.1101/327239

Assessing 42 inflammatory markers in 321 control subjects and 887 major depressive disorder cases: BMI and other confounders and overall predictive ability for current depression

2018· preprint· en· W2803835540 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy R. Powell, Helena Gaspar, Raymond T. Chung, Aoife Keohane, Cerisse Gunasinghe, Rudolf Uher, Katherine J. Aitchison, Daniel Souery, Ole Mors, Wolfgang Maier, Astrid Zobel, Marcella Rietschel, Neven Henigsberg, Mojca Zvezdana Dernovšek, Joanna Hauser, Souci Frissa, Laura Goodwin, Matthew Hotopf, Stephani L. Hatch, David Collier, Hong Wang, Hong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderConfoundingDepression (economics)Body mass indexBiomarkerInternal medicineMedicineAntidepressantOncologyClinical psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inflammatory markers such as cytokines represent potential biomarkers for major depressive disorder (MDD). Many, generally small studies have examined the role of single markers and found significant associations. We assessed 42 inflammatory markers, namely cytokines, in the blood of 321 control subjects and 887 MDD cases. We tested whether individual inflammatory marker levels were significantly affected by MDD case/control status, current episode, or current depression severity, co-varying for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking, current antidepressant use, ethnicity, assay batch and study effects. We further used machine learning algorithms to investigate if we could use our data to blindly discriminate MDD patients, or those in a current episode. We found broad and powerful influences of confounding factors on log-protein levels. Notably, IL-6 levels were very strongly influenced by BMI (p = 1.37 × 10 −43 , variance explained = 18%), while Interleukin-16 was the most significant predictor of current depressive episode (p = 0.003, variance explained = 0.9%, q < 0.1). No single inflammatory marker predicted MDD case/control status when a subject was not in a depressed episode, nor did any predict depression severity. Machine learning results revealed that using inflammatory marker data with clinical confounder information significantly increased precision for differentiating MDD patients who were in an episode. To conclude, a wide panel of inflammatory markers alongside clinical information may aid in predicting the onset of symptoms, but no single inflammatory protein is likely to represent a clinically useful biomarker for MDD diagnosis or prognosis. We note that the potential influence of physical health related and population stratification related confounders on inflammatory biomarker studies in psychiatry is considerable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207