Developing symptom clusters: linking inflammatory biomarkers to depressive symptom profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the burden of depression and the lack of efficacy of available treatments, there is a need for biomarkers to predict tailored or personalized treatments. However, identifying reliable biomarkers for depression has been challenging, likely owing to the vast symptom heterogeneity and high rates of comorbidity that exists. Examining biomarkers that map onto dimensions of depression as well as shared symptoms/constructs that cut across disorders could be most effective for informing personalized treatment approaches. With a sample of 539 young adults, we conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) followed by hierarchical cluster analysis to develop transdiagnostic clusters of depression and anxiety symptoms. We collected blood to assess whether neuroendocrine (cortisol) and inflammatory profiles (C-reactive protein (CRP), Interleukin (IL)-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) - α) could be used to differentiate symptom clusters. Six distinct clusters were identified that differed significantly on symptom dimensions including somatic anxiety, general anxiety, anhedonia, and neurovegetative depression. Moreover, the neurovegetative depression cluster displayed significantly elevated CRP levels compared to other clusters. In fact, inflammation was not strongly associated with overall depression scores or severity, but rather related to specific features of depression marked by eating, appetite, and tiredness. This study emphasizes the importance of characterizing the biological underpinnings of symptom dimensions and subtypes to better understand the etiology of complex mental health disorders such as depression.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".