Blood‐based dynamic genomic signature for obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No biologically based diagnostic criteria are in clinical use today for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder (MDD), which are defined with reference to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual clinical symptoms alone. However, these disorders cannot always be well distinguished on clinical grounds and may also be comorbid. A biological blood-based dynamic genomic signature that can differentiate among OCD, MDD, and schizophrenia would therefore be of great utility. This study enrolled 77 patients with OCD, 67 controls with no psychiatric illness, 39 patients with MDD, and 40 with schizophrenia. An OCD-specific gene signature was identified using blood gene expression analysis to construct a predictive model of OCD that can differentiate this disorder from healthy controls, MDD, and schizophrenia using a logistic regression algorithm. To verify that the genes selected were not derived as a result of chance, the algorithm was tested twice. First, the algorithm was used to predict the cohort with true disease/control status and second, the algorithm predicted the cohort with disease/control status randomly reassigned (null set). A six-gene panel (COPS7A, FKBP1A, FIBP, TP73-AS1, SDF4, and GOLGA8A) discriminated patients with OCD from healthy controls, MDD, and schizophrenia in the training set (with an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 0.938; accuracy, 86%; sensitivity, 88%; and specificity, 85%). Our findings indicate that a blood transcriptomic signature can distinguish OCD from healthy controls, MDD, and schizophrenia. This finding further confirms the feasibility of using dynamic blood-based genomic signatures in psychiatric disorders and may provide a useful tool for clinical staff engaged in OCD diagnosis and decision making.
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 | 0.000 | 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".