Association of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Depression Polygenic Scores with Lithium Response: A Consortium for Lithium Genetics Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response to lithium varies widely between individuals with bipolar disorder (BD). Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can uncover pharmacogenomics effects and may help predict drug response. Patients (<i>N</i> = 2,510) with BD were assessed for long-term lithium response in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics using the Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder score. PRSs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and schizophrenia (SCZ) were computed using <i>lassosum</i> and in a model including all three PRSs and other covariates, and the PRS of ADHD (β = −0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.24 to −0.03; <i>p</i> value = 0.010) and MDD (β = −0.16; 95% CI: −0.27 to −0.04; <i>p</i> value = 0.005) predicted worse quantitative lithium response. A higher SCZ PRS was associated with higher rates of medication nonadherence (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.34–1.93; <i>p</i> value = 2e−7). This study indicates that genetic risk for ADHD and depression may influence lithium treatment response. Interestingly, a higher SCZ PRS was associated with poor adherence, which can negatively impact treatment response. Incorporating genetic risk of ADHD, depression, and SCZ in combination with clinical risk may lead to better clinical care for patients with BD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it