Pharmacogenetics of antidepressant response: a polygenic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) has a high personal and socio-economic burden and more than 60% of patients fail to achieve remission with the first antidepressant. The biological mechanisms behind antidepressant response are only partially known but genetic factors play a relevant role. A combined predictor across genetic variants may be useful to investigate this complex trait. Methods Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were used to estimate multi-allelic contribution to: 1) antidepressant efficacy; 2) its overlap with MDD and schizophrenia. We constructed PRS and tested whether these predicted symptom improvement or remission from the GENDEP study (n=736) to the STAR*D study (n=1409) and vice-versa, including the whole sample or only patients treated with escitalopram or citalopram. Using summary statistics from Psychiatric Genomics Consortium for MDD and schizophrenia, we tested whether PRS from these disorders predicted symptom improvement in GENDEP, STAR*D, and five further studies (n=3756). Results No significant prediction of antidepressant efficacy was obtained from PRS in GENDEP/STAR*D but this analysis might have been underpowered. There was no evidence of overlap in the genetics of antidepressant response with either MDD or schizophrenia, either in individual studies or a meta-analysis. Stratifying by antidepressant did not alter the results. Discussion We identified no significant predictive effect using PRS between pharmacogenetic studies. The genetic liability to MDD or schizophrenia did not predict response to antidepressants, suggesting differences between the genetic component of depression and treatment response. Larger or more homogeneous studies will be necessary to obtain a polygenic predictor of antidepressant response.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".