MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312918812 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v10i4.3087

Can COMT Val158Met Gene Polymorphism Predict Treatment Outcomes for Methylphenidates in ADHD Patients?

2021· article· en· W4312918812 on OpenAlexaff
Rhea Maheshwari, Janet L. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
Keywordsrs4680Catechol-O-methyl transferasePharmacogenomicsMethylphenidateMedicineInternal medicinePharmacogeneticsOncologyClinical psychologyGenotypePsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderGeneticsGenePharmacologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COMT gene encodes for the Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) enzyme, an enzyme responsible for the breakdown of dopamine and norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortical areas. The most common variation of the COMT gene is the Val158Met polymorphism (rs4680) which leads to a valine (Val) to methionine (Met) substitution at codon 158. It is plausible that variations in this gene may predict treatment outcomes to stimulants like methylphenidates used in the treatment of ADHD. The purpose of this study is to statistically evaluate this association to further the clinical implementation of personalized medicine. Quantitative data was collected from clinical trials where patients were genotyped for the COMT gene and were evaluated for treatment response to methylphenidates on a quantifiable scale. Correlational analysis (n=1094) showed a statistically significant association (p=0.003) between this genotype and treatment outcomes. The Odd’s ratio calculated from the binary outcomes (n=638 patients) depicted that the Val/Val carriers were 1.86 times more likely to respond positively to methylphenidate treatment compared to the Met allele carriers. Our analysis shows that variations in COMT gene can reliably predict treatment outcomes to Methylphenidates in ADHD patients. However, this association is based on the data extracted from 9 different clinical studies (n= 1094 patients). These studies had different sample sizes, ethnicities, and measurement scales which may have contributed to the heterogeneity in the overall sample data set, thereby diluting the power of the association. Nevertheless, this analysis adds to the body of pharmacogenomic evidence increasing the clinical utility of precision medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student ResearchSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207