CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 Variant Coverage of Commercial Antidepressant Pharmacogenomic Testing Panels Available in Victoria, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing to inform antidepressant medication selection and dosing is gaining attention from healthcare professionals, patients, and payors in Australia. However, there is often uncertainty regarding which test is most suitable for a particular patient. Here, we identified and evaluated the coverage of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 variants in commercial antidepressant PGx testing panels in Victoria, a large and ethnically diverse state of Australia. Test characteristics and star alleles tested for both genes were obtained directly from pathology laboratories offering PGx testing and compared against the Association of Molecular Pathology’s recommended minimum (Tier 1) and extended (Tier 2) allele sets. Although all tests covered the minimum recommended alleles for CYP2C19, this was not the case for CYP2D6. This study emphasizes that PGx tests might not be suitable for all individuals in Australia due to the limited range of star alleles assessed. Inadequate haplotype coverage may risk misclassification of an individual’s predicted metabolizer phenotype, which has ramifications for depression medication selection and dosage. This study underscores the urgent need for greater standardization in PGx testing and emphasizes the importance of considering genetic ancestry when choosing a PGx testing panel to ensure optimal clinical applicability.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".