Prognostic models predicting transition to psychotic disorder using blood-based biomarkers: a systematic review and critical appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggests individuals with psychotic disorder show abnormalities in metabolic and inflammatory processes. Recently, several studies have employed blood-based predictors in models predicting transition to psychotic disorder in risk-enriched populations. A systematic review of the performance and methodology of prognostic models using blood-based biomarkers in the prediction of psychotic disorder from risk-enriched populations is warranted. Databases (PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO) were searched for eligible texts from 1998 to 15/05/2023, which detailed model development or validation studies. The checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) was used to guide data extraction from eligible texts and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the studies. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was performed. Seventeen eligible studies were identified: 16 eligible model development studies and one eligible model validation study. A wide range of biomarkers were assessed, including nucleic acids, proteins, metabolites, and lipids. The range of C-index (area under the curve) estimates reported for the models was 0.67-1.00. No studies assessed model calibration. According to PROBAST criteria, all studies were at high risk of bias in the analysis domain. While a wide range of potentially predictive biomarkers were identified in the included studies, most studies did not account for overfitting in model performance estimates, no studies assessed calibration, and all models were at high risk of bias according to PROBAST criteria. External validation of the models is needed to provide more accurate estimates of their performance. Future studies which follow the latest available methodological and reporting guidelines and adopt strategies to accommodate required sample sizes for model development or validation will clarify the value of including blood-based biomarkers in models predicting psychosis.
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 | 0.050 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".