Polygenic risk scores of lithium response and treatment resistance in major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment response and resistance in major depressive disorder (MDD) are suggested to be heritable. Due to significant challenges in defining treatment-related phenotypes, our understanding of their genetic bases is limited. This study aimed to derive a stringent definition of treatment resistance and to investigate the genetic overlap between treatment response and resistance in MDD. Using electronic medical records on the use of antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from Swedish registers, we derived the phenotype of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and non-TRD within ~4500 individuals with MDD in three Swedish cohorts. Considering antidepressants and lithium are first-line treatment and augmentation used for MDD, respectively, we generated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of antidepressants and lithium response for individuals with MDD and evaluated their associations with treatment resistance by comparing TRD with non-TRD. Among 1778 ECT-treated MDD cases, nearly all (94%) used antidepressants before their first ECT and the vast majority had at least one (84%) or two (61%) antidepressants of adequate duration, suggesting these MDD cases receiving ECT were resistant to antidepressants. We did not observe a significant difference in the mean PRS of antidepressant response between TRD and non-TRD; however, we found that TRD cases had a significantly higher PRS of lithium response compared to non-TRD cases (OR = 1.10-1.12 under various definitions). The results support the evidence of heritable components in treatment-related phenotypes and highlight the overall genetic profile of lithium-sensitivity in TRD. This finding further provides a genetic explanation for lithium efficacy in treating TRD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".