Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33580158›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Inclusion of genetic variants in an ensemble of gradient boosting decision trees does not improve the prediction of citalopram treatment response.

Jason Shumake, Travis T Mallard, John E McGeary, Christopher G Beevers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Predicting stroke and mortality in mitral stenosis with atrial flutter: A machine learning approach.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Genophenotypic Factors and Pharmacogenomics in Adverse Drug Reactions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jason ShumakeDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas At Austin, 305 E. 23rd St., E9000, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. shumake@utexas.edu.
Travis T MallardDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas At Austin, 305 E. 23rd St., E9000, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
John E McGearyProvidence Veterans Affairs Hospital and Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA.
Christopher G BeeversDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas At Austin, 305 E. 23rd St., E9000, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. beevers@utexas.edu.
The University of Texas at Austin · USProvidence VA Medical Center · US

Funding

Pharmacogenomics of Antidepressant ResponseR01MH072802 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAMILTON, STEVEN P. · 2005 to 2008
$4.6M
Machine Learning and Personalized Prognosis for Depression TreatmentR21MH110758 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BEEVERS, CHRISTOPHER G · 2016 to 2017
$430k
TREATMENT RESISTANT DEPRESSION-278990003N01MH090003 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR/DALLAS · 1999 to 2003
–
NIMH NIH HHS N01 MH090003NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH072802
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying in advance who is unlikely to respond to a specific antidepressant treatment is crucial to precision medicine efforts. The current work leverages genome-wide genetic variation and machine learning to predict response to the antidepressant citalopram using data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial (n = 1257 with both valid genomic and outcome data). A confirmatory approach selected 11 SNPs previously reported to predict response to escitalopram in a sample different from the current study. A novel exploratory approach selected SNPs from across the genome using nested cross-validation with elastic net logistic regression with a predominantly lasso penalty (alpha = 0.99). SNPs from each approach were combined with baseline clinical predictors and treatment response outcomes were predicted using a stacked ensemble of gradient boosting decision trees. Using pre-treatment clinical and symptom predictors only, out-of-fold prediction of a novel treatment response definition based on STAR*D treatment guidelines was acceptable, AUC = .659, 95% CI [0.629, 0.689]. The inclusion of SNPs using confirmatory or exploratory selection methods did not improve the out-of-fold prediction of treatment response (AUCs were .662, 95% CI [0.632, 0.692] and .655, 95% CI [0.625, 0.685], respectively). A similar pattern of results were observed for the secondary outcomes of the presence or absence of distressing side effects regardless of treatment response and achieving remission or satisfactory partial response, assuming medication tolerance. In the current study, incorporating SNP variation into prognostic models did not enhance the prediction of citalopram response in the STAR*D sample.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsArea Under CurveBiomarkers, PharmacologicalCitalopramDatabases, FactualDatabases, GeneticDecision TreesDepressionDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsGenetic VariationHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMajor Depressive DisorderPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrognosisAntidepressive AgentsBiomarkers, PharmacologicalCitalopram

Identifiers

PMID33580158
PMCPMC7881144
OpenAlexW3126961580

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.