Pharmacokinetic Markers of Clinical Outcomes in Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term severe mental illness (SMI) encompasses those psychiatric disorders exerting the highest clinical burden and socio-economic impact on the affected individuals and their communities. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) approaches hold great promise in personalizing treatment selection and clinical outcomes, possibly reducing the burden of SMI. Here, we sought to review the literature in the field, focusing on PGx testing and particularly on pharmacokinetic markers. We performed a systematic review on PUBMED/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. The last search was performed on the 17 September 2022, and further augmented with a comprehensive pearl-growing strategy. In total, 1979 records were screened, and after duplicate removal, 587 unique records were screened by at least 2 independent reviewers. Ultimately, forty-two articles were included in the qualitative analysis, eleven randomized controlled trials and thirty-one nonrandomized studies. The observed lack of standardization in PGx tests, population selection, and tested outcomes limit the overall interpretation of the available evidence. A growing body of evidence suggests that PGx testing might be cost-effective in specific settings and may modestly improve clinical outcomes. More efforts need to be directed toward improving PGx standardization, knowledge for all stakeholders, and clinical practice guidelines for screening recommendations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".