Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27199779›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2016

Is there Progress? An Overview of Selecting Biomarker Candidates for Major Depressive Disorder.

Juan Joseph Young, Tim Silber, Davide Bruno, Isaac Robert Galatzer-Levy, Nunzio Pomara, Charles Raymond Marmar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Advances and Challenges in Depression Marker Research.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Role of Tryptophan Metabolites in Neuropsychiatric Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Juan Joseph YoungNathan Kline Institute, Orangeburg, NY, USA; Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Tim SilberNathan Kline Institute , Orangeburg, NY , USA.
Davide BrunoLiverpool John Moores University , Liverpool , UK.
Isaac Robert Galatzer-LevyNew York University School of Medicine , New York, NY , USA.
Nunzio PomaraNathan Kline Institute, Orangeburg, NY, USA; New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; NYU Cohen Veterans Center, New York, NY, USA.
Charles Raymond MarmarNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; NYU Cohen Veterans Center, New York, NY, USA.
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research · USNew York University · USFondation FondaMental · FRLiverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD) contributes to a significant worldwide disease burden, expected to be second only to heart disease by 2050. However, accurate diagnosis has been a historical weakness in clinical psychiatry. As a result, there is a demand for diagnostic modalities with greater objectivity that could improve on current psychiatric practice that relies mainly on self-reporting of symptoms and clinical interviews. Over the past two decades, literature on a growing number of putative biomarkers for MDD increasingly suggests that MDD patients have significantly different biological profiles compared to healthy controls. However, difficulty in elucidating their exact relationships within depression pathology renders individual markers inconsistent diagnostic tools. Consequently, further biomarker research could potentially improve our understanding of MDD pathophysiology as well as aid in interpreting response to treatment, narrow differential diagnoses, and help refine current MDD criteria. Representative of this, multiplex assays using multiple sources of biomarkers are reported to be more accurate options in comparison to individual markers that exhibit lower specificity and sensitivity, and are more prone to confounding factors. In the future, more sophisticated multiplex assays may hold promise for use in screening and diagnosing depression and determining clinical severity as an advance over relying solely on current subjective diagnostic criteria. A pervasive limitation in existing research is heterogeneity inherent in MDD studies, which impacts the validity of biomarker data. Additionally, small sample sizes of most studies limit statistical power. Yet, as the RDoC project evolves to decrease these limitations, and stronger studies with more generalizable data are developed, significant advances in the next decade are expected to yield important information in the development of MDD biomarkers for use in clinical settings.

Indexed as

assaybiomarkerdiagnosismajor depressionmultiplexstatetrait

Identifiers

PMID27199779
PMCPMC4843170
OpenAlexW2345114362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.