Machine learning and bioinformatic analysis of brain and blood <scp>mRNA</scp> profiles in major depressive disorder: A case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed gene expression messenger RNA data, from cases with major depressive disorder (MDD) and controls, using supervised machine learning (ML). We built on the methodology of prior studies to obtain more generalizable/reproducible results. First, we obtained a classifier trained on gene expression data from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of post-mortem MDD cases (n = 126) and controls (n = 103). An average area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (AUC) from 10-fold cross-validation of 0.72 was noted, compared to an average AUC of 0.55 for a baseline classifier (p = .0048). The classifier achieved an AUC of 0.76 on a previously unused testing-set. We also performed external validation using DLPFC gene expression values from an independent cohort of matched MDD cases (n = 29) and controls (n = 29), obtained from Affymetrix microarray (vs. Illumina microarray for the original cohort) (AUC: 0.62). We highlighted gene sets differentially expressed in MDD that were enriched for genes identified by the ML algorithm. Next, we assessed the ML classification performance in blood-based microarray gene expression data from MDD cases (n = 1,581) and controls (n = 369). We observed a mean AUC of 0.64 on 10-fold cross-validation, which was significantly above baseline (p = .0020). Similar performance was observed on the testing-set (AUC: 0.61). Finally, we analyzed the classification performance in covariates subgroups. We identified an interesting interaction between smoking and recall performance in MDD case prediction (58% accurate predictions in cases who are smokers vs. 43% accurate predictions in cases who are non-smokers). Overall, our results suggest that ML in combination with gene expression data and covariates could further our understanding of the pathophysiology in 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".