MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214525197 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2022.28

Using polygenic scores and clinical data for bipolar disorder patient stratification and lithium response prediction: machine learning approach

2022· article· en· W4214525197 on OpenAlexafffund
Micah Cearns, Azmeraw T. Amare, Klaus Oliver Schubert, Anbupalam Thalamuthu, Joseph D. Frank, Fabian Streit, Mazda Adli, Nirmala Akula, Kazufumi Akiyama, Raffaella Ardau, Bárbara Arias, Jean‐Michel Aubry, Lena Backlund, Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Frank Bellivier, Antonio Benabarre, Susanne Bengesser, Joanna M. Biernacka, Armin Birner, Clara Brichant‐Petitjean, Pablo Cervantes, Hsi‐Chung Chen, Caterina Chillotti, Sven Cichon, Cristiana Cruceanu, Piotr M. Czerski, Nina Dalkner, Alexandre Dayer, Franziska Degenhardt, Maria Del Zompo, J. Raymond DePaulo, Bruno Étain, Peter Falkai, Andreas J. Forstner, Louise Frisén, Mark A. Frye, Janice M. Fullerton, Sébastien Gard, Julie Garnham, Fernando S. Goes, Maria Grigoroiu‐Serbânescu, Paul Grof, Ryota Hashimoto, Joanna Hauser, Urs Heilbronner, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Andrea Hofmann, Liping Hou, Yi‐Hsiang Hsu, Stéphane Jamain, Esther Jiménez, Jean‐Pierre Kahn, Layla Kassem, Po‐Hsiu Kuo, Tadafumi Kato, John R. Kelsoe, Sarah Kittel‐Schneider, Sebastian Kliwicki, Barbara König, Ichiro Kusumi, Gonzalo Laje, Mikael Landén, Catharina Lavebratt, Marion Leboyer, Susan G. Leckband, Mario Maj, Mirko Manchia, Lina Martinsson, Michael J. McCarthy, Susan L. McElroy, Francesc Colom, Marina Mitjans, Francis M. Mondimore, Palmiero Monteleone, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Markus M. Nöthen, Tomáš Novák, Claire O’Donovan, Norio Ozaki, Vincent Millischer, Sergi Papiol, Andrea Pfennig, Claudia Pisanu, James B. Potash, Andreas Reif, Eva Z. Reininghaus, Guy A. Rouleau, Janusz Rybakowski, Martin Schalling, Peter R. Schofield, Barbara Schweizer, Giovanni Severino, Tatyana Shekhtman, Paul D. Shilling, Katzutaka Shimoda, Christian Simhandl, Claire Slaney, Alessio Squassina, Thomas Stamm, Pavla Stopková, Fasil Tekola‐Ayele, Alfonso Tortorella, Gustavo Turecki, Julia Veeh, Eduard Vieta, Stephanie H. Witt, Gloria Roberts, Peter P. Zandi, Martin Alda, Michael Bauer, Francis J. McMahon, Philip B. Mitchell, Thomas G. Schulze, Marcella Rietschel, Scott R. Clark, Bernhard T. Baune

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement DisordersMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University Health CentreDalhousie UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNIH Clinical CenterAgence Nationale de la RechercheDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBipolar disorderMajor depressive disorderPopulation stratificationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyLithium (medication)Clinical psychologyStatisticsMachine learningArtificial intelligencePsychiatryComputer scienceCognitionMathematicsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment. Aims To use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder. Method This study utilised genetic and clinical data ( n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi + Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework. Results The best performing linear model explained 5.1% ( P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% ( P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% ( P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data. Conclusions Using PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207