Pharmacomicrobiomics of Antidepressants in Depression: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the animal and human evidence for pharmacomicrobiomics (PMx) interactions of antidepressant medications. Studies of gut microbiota effects on functional and behavioral effects of antidepressants in human and animal models were identified from PubMed up to December 2022. Risk of bias was assessed, and results are presented as a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A total of 28 (21 animal, 7 human) studies were included in the review. The reviewed papers converged on three themes: (1) Antidepressants can alter the composition and metabolites of gut microbiota, (2) gut microbiota can alter the bioavailability of certain antidepressants, and (3) gut microbiota may modulate the clinical or modeled mood modifying effects of antidepressants. The majority (n = 22) of studies had at least moderate levels of bias present. While strong evidence is still lacking to understand the clinical role of antidepressant PMx in human health, there is evidence for interactions among antidepressants, microbiota changes, microbiota metabolite changes, and behavior. Well-controlled studies of the mediating and moderating effects of baseline and treatment-emergent changes in microbiota on therapeutic and adverse responses to antidepressants are needed to better establish a potential role of PMx in personalizing antidepressant treatment selection and response prediction.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".