MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Genetic Testing in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414654759 on OpenAlexaff
Harman Singh Brah, Nimrat Sran, Luke Valmadrid, Isabel Gandarilla, Savannah K. Fakhouri, Emma Longmire, Karen Heskett, Kimberley Kendall, Armin Raznahan, Danielle Baribeau, Chun Chieh Fan, Aaron D. Besterman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionRichard P. Kimmel and Laurine Kimmel Charitable FoundationMount Sinai Children's Center FoundationBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsGenetic testingPopulationSampling (signal processing)MEDLINEMultiple comparisons problemRepresentation (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing may provide important diagnostic information for individuals with schizophrenia, but the frequency with which clinically significant variants are identified across different testing approaches has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: statistic. RESULTS: = 95.9%). Geographic representation was limited, with no studies from Latin America, South Asia, or Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing identifies clinically informative variants in approximately 6% of individuals with schizophrenia. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies and limited geographic representation underscore the need for more standardized testing approaches and broader population sampling in future genetic research on schizophrenia.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological PsychiatrySame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207