Pharmacogenomic insights in psychiatric care: uncovering novel actionability, allele-specific CYP2D6 copy number variation, and phenoconversion in 15,000 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacogenomic testing has emerged as an aid in clinical decision making for psychiatric providers, but more data is needed regarding its utility in clinical practice and potential impact on patient care. In this cross-sectional study, we determined the real-world prevalence of pharmacogenomic actionability in patients receiving psychiatric care. Potential actionability was based on the prevalence of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 phenotypes, including CYP2D6 allele-specific copy number variations (CNVs). Combined actionability additionally incorporated CYP2D6 phenoconversion and the novel CYP2C-TG haplotype in patients with available medication data. Across 15,000 patients receiving clinical pharmacogenomic testing, 65% had potentially actionable CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 phenotypes, and phenotype assignment was impacted by CYP2D6 allele-specific CNVs in 2% of all patients. Of 4114 patients with medication data, 42% had CYP2D6 phenoconversion from drug interactions and 20% carried a novel CYP2C haplotype potentially altering actionability. A total of 87% had some form of potential actionability from genetic findings and/or phenoconversion. Genetic variation detected via next-generation sequencing led to phenotype reassignment in 22% of individuals overall (2% in CYP2D6 and 20% in CYP2C19). Ultimately, pharmacogenomic testing using next-generation sequencing identified potential actionability in most patients receiving psychiatric care. Early pharmacogenomic testing may provide actionable insights to aid clinicians in drug prescribing to optimize psychiatric care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".