Optimizing multi-domain hematologic biomarkers and clinical features for the differential diagnosis of unipolar depression and bipolar depression

Abstract

There is a lack of objective features for the differential diagnosis of unipolar and bipolar depression, especially those that are readily available in practical settings. We investigated whether clinical features of disease course, biomarkers from complete blood count, and blood biochemical markers could accurately classify unipolar and bipolar depression using machine learning methods. This retrospective study included 1160 eligible patients (918 with unipolar depression and 242 with bipolar depression). Patient data were randomly split into training (85%) and open test (15%) sets 1000 times, and the average performance was reported. XGBoost achieved the optimal open-test performance using selected biomarkers and clinical features—AUC 0.889, sensitivity 0.831, specificity 0.839, and accuracy 0.863. The importance of features for differential diagnosis was measured using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. The most informative features include (1) clinical features of disease duration and age of onset, (2) biochemical markers of albumin, low density lipoprotein (LDL), and potassium, and (3) complete blood count-derived biomarkers of white blood cell count (WBC), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and monocytes (MONO). Overall, onset features and hematologic biomarkers appear to be reliable information that can be readily obtained in clinical settings to facilitate the differential diagnosis of unipolar and bipolar depression.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictive biomarker for early diagnosis of depression: A narrative review

“…More specifically, there is a 5.31 percent greater likelihood of bipolar depression among depressive patients with higher NLR scores ( Dionisie et al, 2021 ). As a result, NLR may serve as a biomarker for the inflammatory state that characterizes bipolar depression ( Zeng et al, 2023 ). Future prospective research on bigger samples that replicate these findings and evaluate them with other inflammatory indicators will undoubtedly be required to make any firm conclusions.…”