The emergence, implementation, and future growth of pharmacogenomics in psychiatry: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotropic medication efficacy and tolerability are critical treatment issues faced by individuals with psychiatric disorders and their healthcare providers. For some people, it can take months to years of a trial-and-error process to identify a medication with the ideal efficacy and tolerability profile. Current strategies (e.g. clinical practice guidelines, treatment algorithms) for addressing this issue can be useful at the population level, but often fall short at the individual level. This is, in part, attributed to interindividual variation in genes that are involved in pharmacokinetic (i.e. absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination) and pharmacodynamic (e.g. receptors, signaling pathways) processes that in large part, determine whether a medication will be efficacious or tolerable. A precision prescribing strategy know as pharmacogenomics (PGx) assesses these genomic variations, and uses it to inform selection and dosing of certain psychotropic medications. In this review, we describe the path that led to the emergence of PGx in psychiatry, the current evidence base and implementation status of PGx in the psychiatric clinic, and finally, the future growth potential of precision psychiatry via the convergence of the PGx-guided strategy with emerging technologies and approaches (i.e. pharmacoepigenomics, pharmacomicrobiomics, pharmacotranscriptomics, pharmacoproteomics, pharmacometabolomics) to personalize treatment of psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".