ArticleSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
A diagnostic model based on bioinformatics and machine learning to differentiate bipolar disorder from schizophrenia and major depressive disorder.
Article in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Expression and Bioinformatic Analysis of AKT-Associated lncRNAs Suggests UCA1 as a Candidate Biomarker for Bipolar Disorder.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2026Article
- Comprehensive analysis of interactions between brain aging and late-onset psychoses using heuristic mapping models.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Data Diversity vs. Model Complexity in the Prediction of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: Evidence from Academic and Community Clinical Samples.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of a diagnostic model for differentiating major depressive disorder from bipolar disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Methods and Omics for Mental Illness Diagnosis: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Detecting depression severity using weighted random forest and oxidative stress biomarkers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A novel anxiety-associated SNP identified inFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) showed the highest suicide rate of all psychiatric disorders, and its underlying causative genes and effective treatments remain unclear. During diagnosis, BD is often confused with schizophrenia (SC) and major depressive disorder (MDD), due to which patients may receive inadequate or inappropriate treatment, which is detrimental to their prognosis. This study aims to establish a diagnostic model to distinguish BD from SC and MDD in multiple public datasets through bioinformatics and machine learning and to provide new ideas for diagnosing BD in the future. Three brain tissue datasets containing BD, SC, and MDD were chosen from the Gene Expression Omnibus database (GEO), and two peripheral blood datasets were selected for validation. Linear Models for Microarray Data (Limma) analysis was carried out to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Functional enrichment analysis and machine learning were utilized to identify. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was employed for identifying candidate immune-associated central genes, constructing protein-protein interaction networks (PPI), building artificial neural networks (ANN) for validation, and plotting receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) for differentiating BD from SC and MDD and creating immune cell infiltration to study immune cell dysregulation in the three diseases. RBM10 was obtained as a candidate gene to distinguish BD from SC. Five candidate genes (LYPD1, HMBS, HEBP2, SETD3, and ECM2) were obtained to distinguish BD from MDD. The validation was performed by ANN, and ROC curves were plotted for diagnostic value assessment. The outcomes exhibited the prediction model to have a promising diagnostic value. In the immune infiltration analysis, Naive B, Resting NK, and Activated Mast Cells were found to be substantially different between BD and SC. Naive B and Memory B cells were prominently variant between BD and MDD. In this study, RBM10 was found as a candidate gene to distinguish BD from SC; LYPD1, HMBS, HEBP2, SETD3, and ECM2 serve as five candidate genes to distinguish BD from MDD. The results obtained from the ANN network showed that these candidate genes could perfectly distinguish BD from SC and MDD (76.923% and 81.538%, respectively).
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.