MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904708914 · doi:10.2217/pgs-2018-0142

Pharmacogenetic Tests and Depressive Symptom Remission: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018· review· en· W2904708914 on OpenAlexafffund
Chad Bousman, Katarina Arandjelovic, Serafino G. Mancuso, Harris A. Eyre, Boadie W. Dunlop

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacogenomics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthJanssen BiotechOtsuka AmericaAcadia University
KeywordsMeta-analysisPharmacogeneticsRandomized controlled trialMedicineInternal medicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPharmacologyBiologyGenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools (DSTs) relevant to depressive symptom remission in major depressive disorder (MDD). PATIENTS & METHODS: Random-effects meta-analysis was performed on RCTs that examined the effect of DSTs on remission rates in MDD. RCT quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Criteria. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: A total of 1737 eligible subjects from five RCTs were examined. Individuals receiving pharmacogenetic-guided DST therapy (n = 887) were 1.71 (95% CI: 1.17-2.48; p = 0.005) times more likely to achieve symptom remission relative to individuals who received treatment as usual (n = 850). Pharmacogenetic-guided DSTs might improve symptom remission among those 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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations203
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacogenomicsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207