Identification of Endocannabinoid Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in Major Depressive Disorder: A Secondary Analysis of the First Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND 1) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of studies are examining the link between the endocannabinoidome and major depressive disorder (MDD). We conducted an exploratory analysis of this system to identify potential markers of treatment outcomes. METHODS: The dataset of the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression-1 study, consisting of 180 patients with MDD treated for eight weeks with escitalopram followed by eight weeks with escitalopram alone or augmented with aripiprazole was analyzed. Association between response Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; score reduction≥50%) or remission (MADRS score≤10) at weeks 8 and 16 and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), methylation, and mRNA levels of 33 endocannabinoid markers were examined. A standard genome-wide association studies protocol was used for identifying SNPs, and logistic regression was used to assess methylation and mRNA levels. RESULTS: was correlated with improvement in Clinical Global Impression (p=0.026), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (p=0.010), and Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure scales (p=0.028). We did not find any association between SNPs or mRNA levels and treatment outcomes. DISCUSSION: is a promising candidate as a marker of treatment outcomes for MDD and needs to be explored further.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".