Evaluating the prospective utility of pharmacogenetics reporting among Canadian Armed Forces personnel receiving pharmacotherapy: a preliminary assessment towards precision psychiatric care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacological interventions for treating posttraumatic stress disorder in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and Veterans often achieve modest results. The field of pharmacogenetics, or the study of how genes influence an individual's response to different medications, offers insight into how prior knowledge of gene-drug interactions may potentially improve the trial-and-error process of drug selection in pharmacotherapy, thereby improving treatment effects and remission rates. Given the relative recency of pharmacogenetics testing and sparse research in military samples, we used pharmacogenetics testing in a small pilot group (n=23) of CAF members and Veterans who were already engaged in pharmacotherapy for a service-related mental health condition to better understand the associated opportunities and challenges of pharmacogenetics testing in this population. Our preliminary evaluation involved: (1) reporting the prevalence of pharmacogenetics testing 'bin' status according to participants' reports ('green', 'yellow' or 'red'; intending to signal 'go', 'caution' or 'stop', regarding the potential for gene-drug interactions); (2) calculating the percentage of currently prescribed psychotropic medications that were assessed and included in the reports; (3) evaluating whether prescribers used pharmacogenetics testing information according to clinical notes and (4) collecting informal feedback from participating psychiatrists. While pharmacogenetics testing appeared to provide valuable information for a number of clients, a major limitation was the number of commonly prescribed medications not included in the reports.
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 | 0.038 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".