Application of Drug Efficiency Index Metric for Analysis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Treatment Resistant Depression Gene Expression Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe mental illness with grave social, political, economic, and humanitarian implications. To apply the principles of personalized omics-based medicine to this psychiatric problem, we implemented our previously introduced drug efficiency index (DEI) to the PTSD gene expression datasets. Generally, omics-based personalized medicine evaluates individual drug action using two classes of data: (1) gene expression, mutation, and Big Data profiles, and (2) molecular pathway graphs that reflect the protein–protein interaction. In the particular case of the DEI metric, we evaluate the drug action according to the drug’s ability to restore healthy (control) activation levels of molecular pathways. We have curated five PTSD and one TRD (treatment-resistant depression) cohorts of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and microarray hybridization (MH) gene expression profiles, which, in total, comprise 791 samples, including 379 cases and 413 controls. To check the applicability of our DEI metrics, we have performed three differential studies with gene expression and pathway activation data: (1) case samples vs. control samples, (2) case samples after treatment or/and observation vs. before treatment, and (3) samples from patients positively responding to the treatment vs. those responding negatively or non-responding patients. We found that the DEI values that use the signaling pathway impact activation (SPIA) metric were better than those that used the Oncobox pathway activation level (Oncobox PAL) approach. However, SPIA, Oncobox PAL, and DEI evaluations were reliable only if there were differential genes between case and control, or treated and untreated, samples.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".