Exemplar scoring identifies genetically separable phenotypes of lithium responsive bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting lithium response (LiR) in bipolar disorder (BD) may inform treatment planning, but phenotypic heterogeneity complicates discovery of genomic markers. We hypothesized that patients with "exemplary phenotypes"-those whose clinical features are reliably associated with LiR and non-response (LiNR)-are more genetically separable than those with less exemplary phenotypes. Using clinical data collected from people with BD (n = 1266 across 7 centers; 34.7% responders), we computed a "clinical exemplar score," which measures the degree to which a subject's clinical phenotype is reliably predictive of LiR/LiNR. For patients whose genotypes were available (n = 321), we evaluated whether a subgroup of responders/non-responders with the top 25% of clinical exemplar scores (the "best clinical exemplars") were more accurately classified based on genetic data, compared to a subgroup with the lowest 25% of clinical exemplar scores (the "poor clinical exemplars"). On average, the best clinical exemplars of LiR had a later illness onset, completely episodic clinical course, absence of rapid cycling and psychosis, and few psychiatric comorbidities. The best clinical exemplars of LiR and LiNR were genetically separable with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88 (IQR [0.83, 0.98]), compared to 0.66 [0.61, 0.80] (p = 0.0032) among poor clinical exemplars. Variants in the Alzheimer's amyloid-secretase pathway, along with G-protein-coupled receptor, muscarinic acetylcholine, and histamine H1R signaling pathways were informative predictors. This study must be replicated on larger samples and extended to predict response to other mood stabilizers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".