ArticlePsychological medicine2025
Integrating brain imaging features and genomic profiles for the subtyping of major depression.
Article in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecise stratification of patients into homogeneous disease subgroups could address the heterogeneity of phenotypes and enhance understanding of the pathophysiology underlying specific subtypes. Existing literature on subtyping patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) mainly utilized clinical features only. Genomic and imaging data may improve subtyping, but advanced methods are required due to the high dimensionality of features.
methodsWe propose a novel disease subtyping framework for MDD by integrating brain structural features, genotype-predicted expression levels in brain tissues, and clinical features. Using a multi-view biclustering approach, we classify patients into clinically and biologically homogeneous subgroups. Additionally, we propose approaches to identify causally relevant genes for clustering.
resultsWe verified the reliability of the subtyping model by internal and external validation. High prediction strengths (PS) (average PS: 0.896, minimum: 0.854), a measure of generalizability of the derived clusters in independent datasets, support the validity of our approach. External validation using patient outcome variables (treatment response and hospitalization risks) confirmed the clinical relevance of the identified subgroups. Furthermore, subtype-defining genes overlapped with known susceptibility genes for MDD and were involved in relevant biological pathways. In addition, drug repositioning analysis based on these genes prioritized promising candidates for subtype-specific treatments.
conclusionsOur approach successfully stratified MDD patients into subgroups with distinct clinical prognoses. The identification of biologically and clinically meaningful subtypes may enable more personalized treatment strategies. This study also provides a framework for disease subtyping that can be extended to other complex disorders.
Indexed as
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.