Bias in Peripheral Depression Biomarkers

Abstract

Background: To aid in the differentiation of individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) from healthy controls, numerous peripheral biomarkers have been proposed. To date, no comprehensive evaluation of the existence of bias favoring the publication of significant results or inflating effect sizes has been conducted. Methods: Here, we performed a comprehensive review of meta-analyses of peripheral nongenetic biomarkers that could discriminate individuals with MDD from nondepressed controls. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched through April 10, 2015. Results: From 15 references, we obtained 31 eligible meta-analyses evaluating biomarkers in MDD (21,201 cases and 78,363 controls). Twenty meta-analyses reported statistically significant effect size estimates. Heterogeneity was high (I² ≥50%) in 29 meta-analyses. We plausibly assumed that the true effect size for a meta-analysis would equal the one of its largest study. A significant summary effect size estimate was observed for 20 biomarkers. We observed an excess of statistically significant studies in 21 meta-analyses. The summary effect size of the meta-analysis was higher than the effect of its largest study in 25 meta-analyses, while 11 meta-analyses had evidence of small-study effects. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is an excess of studies with statistically significant results in the literature of peripheral biomarkers for MDD. The selective publication of ‘positive studies' and the selective reporting of outcomes are possible mechanisms. Effect size estimates of meta-analyses may be inflated in this literature.

Risk factors and peripheral biomarkers for schizophrenia spectrum disorders: an umbrella review of meta‐analyses

“…However, in most cases, the sample size of component studies was small, or the P ‐value was close to the nominal significance threshold. Similar findings were observed in umbrella reviews on peripheral biomarkers for depression and bipolar disorder .…”

The DSM5/RDoC debate on the future of mental health research: implication for studies on human stress and presentation of the signature bank

“…Here studies have shown that glucocorticoids are increased in depression (Barden, 2004;Charney & Manji, 2004;Gold et al, 2002), anxiety (Yoon & Joormann, 2012), schizophrenia (Berger et al, 2016), bipolar disorder (Belvederi Murri et al, 2016, although they are decreased in PTSD (Yehuda et al, 2005 #5143)), conduct disorders (Buydens-Branchey & Branchey, 2004;Pajer et al, 2001) and burnout (Pruessner et al, 1999). This high discrepancy of data has been related to various factors, ranging from publication bias (Carvalho et al, 2016), changes in glucocorticoid receptors' regulation (Yehuda et al, 2006) and adaptation mechanisms to chronic stress (Miller et al, 2007).…”

The new field of ‘precision psychiatry’

“…Considering that no single biomarker will probably define any psychiatric disorder as defined by traditional diagnostic boundaries [13, 20, 21], it will be essential to pursue in parallel theory- and data-driven discovery approaches to delineate the multivariate and combinatorial profiles of biomarkers (across units of analysis) that account for the heterogeneity of mental illnesses as they manifest clinically.…”