Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29474698›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin2019

Antibodies in the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Prediction of Psychotic Disorders.

Thomas A Pollak, Jonathan P Rogers, Robert G Nagele, Mark Peakman, James M Stone, Anthony S David, Philip McGuire

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Aptamer Applications in Neuroscience.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Autoimmune Diseases and Psychotic Disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas A PollakDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan P RogersDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Robert G NageleBiomarker Discovery Center, New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ.
Mark PeakmanDepartment of Immunobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
James M StoneDepartment of Neuroimaging, Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Anthony S DavidDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBRowan University · USWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood-based biomarker discovery for psychotic disorders has yet to impact upon routine clinical practice. In physical disorders antibodies have established roles as diagnostic, prognostic and predictive (theranostic) biomarkers, particularly in disorders thought to have a substantial autoimmune or infective aetiology. Two approaches to antibody biomarker identification are distinguished: a "top-down" approach, in which antibodies to specific antigens are sought based on the known function of the antigen and its putative role in the disorder, and emerging "bottom-up" or "omics" approaches that are agnostic as to the significance of any one antigen, using high-throughput arrays to identify distinctive components of the antibody repertoire. Here we review the evidence for antibodies (to self-antigens as well as infectious organism and dietary antigens) as biomarkers of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response in psychotic disorders. Neuronal autoantibodies have current, and increasing, clinical utility in the diagnosis of organic or atypical psychosis syndromes. Antibodies to selected infectious agents show some promise in predicting cognitive impairment and possibly other symptom domains (eg, suicidality) within psychotic disorders. Finally, infectious antibodies and neuronal and other autoantibodies have recently emerged as potential biomarkers of response to anti-infective therapies, immunotherapies, or other novel therapeutic strategies in psychotic disorders, and have a clear role in stratifying patients for future clinical trials. As in nonpsychiatric disorders, combining biomarkers and large-scale use of "bottom-up" approaches to biomarker identification are likely to maximize the eventual clinical utility of antibody biomarkers in psychotic disorders.

Indexed as

BiomarkersAntibodiesHumansPsychotic DisordersAntibodiesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29474698
PMCPMC6293207
OpenAlexW2789268613

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.