MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398781975 · doi:10.26685/urncst.568

Fecal Calprotectin as a Biomarker of Depression Severity: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4398781975 on OpenAlexaff
Kuljeet K. Chohan, Bharat Duggal

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalprotectinBiomarkerMedicineDepression (economics)FecesInternal medicineBiologyMicrobiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Depression is a debilitating mental health condition. Although the underlying pathophysiology of depression is poorly understood, emerging evidence suggests that the gut-brain-immune axis may contribute to depressive symptoms. Recent literature has established that depression is associated with systemic low-grade inflammation. According to the leaky-gut hypothesis, this systemic inflammation is thought to be caused by increased permeability—a by-product of mucosal inflammation. Accordingly, some research has demonstrated that fecal calprotectin (FC)—a marker of mucosal inflammation—is positively associated with depressive symptoms. However, with some research showing no correlation between the two, the literature has a lack of consensus on the topic. The aim of the current systematic review was to clarify the association between FC and depression. Methods: A search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo using MeSH terms related to fecal calprotectin and depression. All English studies with human participants were screened for eligibility by two individual raters, excluding case studies and review papers. Selected articles were subsequently used in the data extraction to look for relevant study characteristics and their findings regarding the correlation between fecal calprotectin and depression. Additionally, the JBI tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results: A total of 7 articles were included in the study, comprising 1184 patients. The review found that there is no consensus on whether calprotectin and depression are correlated; therefore, no evidence suggesting utility of calprotectin as a biomarker of depression was found. Discussion: Despite the conflicting findings of the study, there is still some evidence to suggest that calprotectin could be useful as a biomarker. Some of the included studies found that the time of sample collection in relation to the ranking of depression symptoms has an effect on the degree of correlation. Conclusion: This study found that fecal calprotectin is a weak biomarker of depression and is impractical in the general population due to the collection method. Alternatives include serum calprotectin and markers of neuroinflammation. Other studies looking at the role of salivary biomarkers in depression may prove to be promising.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207