MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388631041 · doi:10.1038/s41380-023-02298-3

An umbrella review of candidate predictors of response, remission, recovery, and relapse across mental disorders

2023· review· en· W4388631041 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Solmi, Samuele Cortese, Giovanni Vita, Michele De Prisco, Joaquim Raduà, Elena Dragioti, Ole Köhler‐Forsberg, Nanna M. Madsen, Christopher Rohde, Luis Eudave, Clàudia Aymerich, Borja Pedruzo, Victoria Rodríguez, Stella Rosson, Michel Sabé, Mikkel Højlund, Ana Catalán, Beatrice De Luca, Michele Fornaro, Giovanni Ostuzzi, Corrado Barbui, Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo, Paolo Fusar‐Poli, Christoph U. Correll

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAllerganSeqirusSun PharmaH. Lundbeck A/SMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationNovo Nordisk FondenTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNovo NordiskMylanSolent NHS TrustLundbeckfondenQuantICSK Life ScienceGedeon RichterUniversity of SouthamptonSunovion
KeywordsPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyPsychotherapistOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to identify diagnosis-specific/transdiagnostic/transoutcome multivariable candidate predictors (MCPs) of key outcomes in mental disorders. We conducted an umbrella review (protocol link ), searching MEDLINE/Embase (19/07/2022), including systematic reviews of studies reporting on MCPs of response, remission, recovery, or relapse, in DSM/ICD-defined mental disorders. From published predictors, we filtered MCPs, validating MCP criteria. AMSTAR2/PROBAST measured quality/risk of bias of systematic reviews/individual studies. We included 117 systematic reviews, 403 studies, 299,888 individuals with mental disorders, testing 796 prediction models. Only 4.3%/1.2% of the systematic reviews/individual studies were at low risk of bias. The most frequently targeted outcome was remission (36.9%), the least frequent was recovery (2.5%). Studies mainly focused on depressive (39.4%), substance-use (17.9%), and schizophrenia-spectrum (11.9%) disorders. We identified numerous MCPs within disorders for response, remission and relapse, but none for recovery. Transdiagnostic MCPs of remission included lower disease-specific symptoms (disorders = 5), female sex/higher education (disorders = 3), and quality of life/functioning (disorders = 2). Transdiagnostic MCPs of relapse included higher disease-specific symptoms (disorders = 5), higher depressive symptoms (disorders = 3), and younger age/higher anxiety symptoms/global illness severity/ number of previous episodes/negative life events (disorders = 2). Finally, positive trans-outcome MCPs for depression included less negative life events/depressive symptoms (response, remission, less relapse), female sex (response, remission) and better functioning (response, less relapse); for schizophrenia, less positive symptoms/higher depressive symptoms (remission, less relapse); for substance use disorder, marital status/higher education (remission, less relapse). Male sex, younger age, more clinical symptoms and comorbid mental/physical symptoms/disorders were poor prognostic factors, while positive factors included social contacts and employment, absent negative life events, higher education, early access/intervention, lower disease-specific and comorbid mental and physical symptoms/conditions, across mental disorders. Current data limitations include high risk of bias of studies and extraction of single predictors from multivariable models. Identified MCPs can inform future development, validation or refinement of prediction models of key outcomes in mental 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.013
Bibliometrics0.0270.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207