Evaluating treatment outcomes in pharmacogenomic-guided care for major depression: A rapid review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing may increase the probability of remission and response in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) undergoing pharmacotherapy. Given the potential implications of these outcomes and recent proliferation of PGx studies, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of PGx testing on clinical outcomes in patients with MDD as compared to treatment as usual (TAU). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CENTRAL were searched for English-language articles from 2000 to 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PGx-guided treatment vs. TAU in patients with MDD. Meta-analyses were conducted in R. Ten RCTs were included: eight reported remission and seven reported response. The best available evidence suggests that PGx-guided care for moderate-to-severe adult depression is more likely to result in remission and response than TAU (both risk ratios significant). However, there are limitations in the evidence base, including high risk of bias and inconsistency between trials. Despite the consequent very low certainty in the magnitude of effect, there is confidence in the direction. Though modest, the beneficial effects of PGx for adults with moderate-severe MDD could - as a result of the scope and scale of the condition and its impacts - have important ramifications for patients and the health system.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".