MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410817651 · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.119545

Inflammatory biomarkers as predictors for unlocking antidepressant efficacy: Assessing predictive value and risk stratification in major depressive disorder in a prospective longitudinal study

2025· article· en· W4410817651 on OpenAlexaff
Nervana Elbakary, Noriya Al‐Khuzaei, Tarteel Ali Hussain, Ahmed Karawia, Malek Smida, Niveen Abu-Rahma, Fairooz Akel, James D. Currie, Mohamed Adil Shah Khoodoruth, Sami Ouanes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersQatar National LibraryHamad Medical CorporationMedical Research Center, Hamad Medical Corporation
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineBiomarkerProspective cohort studyMedicineAntidepressantDepression (economics)Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratioMean corpuscular volumeOncologyLymphocyteHematocrit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by significant heterogeneity in treatment response, with inflammation hypothesized to play a role in its pathophysiology. Peripheral inflammatory biomarkers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), may predict antidepressant efficacy. This study investigated the association between baseline inflammatory biomarkers, their changes, and antidepressant treatment outcomes in patients with MDD. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal cohort study in Qatar recruited 123 MDD outpatients (aged 18-64). Baseline assessments included NLR, CRP, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). Depression severity was measured via the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSRS) at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment. Statistical analyses, including multiple regression and Random Forest machine learning models, identified predictors of antidepressant response. RESULTS: Improvement in depressive symptoms was associated with female sex, higher mean corpuscular volume (MCV), lower absolute neutrophil count (ANC), and higher eosinophil counts. However, changes in NLR, MLR, PLR, and CRP did not predict treatment response. Folate levels and PLR were identified by the machine learning model as top predictors, suggesting potential utility as biomarkers for response classification. Our study identified predictors of improvement in suicidal ideation, including hematological markers (lower RBC, higher eosinophils, lower monocytes), younger age, female sex, medical comorbidities, and longer assessment intervals. CONCLUSION: Baseline ANC and eosinophil count may help stratify MDD treatment outcomes, though post-treatment biomarker changes were not linked to symptom improvement. Our findings highlight suicidality as a distinct pathology within depression, necessitating tailored interventions. This study highlights the complexity of inflammation in depression and suicidality, emphasizing the need for advanced biomarkers utilization in precision medicine and personalized psychiatry treatment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective DisordersSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207