Polygenic scores for major depressive disorder and depressive symptoms predict response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lithium is a first-line medication for bipolar disorder (BD), but only ~30% of patients respond optimally to the drug. Since genetic factors are known to mediate lithium treatment response, we hypothesized whether polygenic susceptibility to the spectrum of depression traits is associated with treatment outcomes in patients with BD. In addition, we explored the potential molecular underpinnings of this relationship. Methods Weighted polygenic scores (PGSs) were computed for major depressive disorder (MDD) and depressive symptoms (DS) in BD patients from the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi + Gen; n=2,586) who received lithium treatment. Lithium treatment outcome was assessed using the ALDA scale. Summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in MDD (130,664 cases and 330,470 controls) and DS (n=161,460) were used for PGS weighting. Associations between PGSs of depression traits and lithium treatment response were assessed by binary logistic regression. We also performed a cross-trait meta-GWAS, followed by Ingenuity ® Pathway Analysis. Outcomes BD patients with a low polygenic load for depressive traits were more likely to respond well to lithium, compared to patients with high polygenic load (MDD: OR =1.64 [95%CI: 1.26-2.15], lowest vs highest PGS quartiles; DS: OR=1.53 [95%CI: 1.18-2.00]). Associations were significant for type 1, but not type 2 BD. Cross-trait GWAS and functional characterization implicated voltage-gated potassium channels, insulin-related pathways, mitogen-activated protein-kinase (MAPK) signaling, and miRNA expression. Interpretation Genetic loading to depression traits in BD patients lower their odds of responding optimally to lithium. Our findings support the emerging concept of a lithium-responsive biotype in BD. Funding See attached details
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".