PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 23, 2026Neuroscience Applied0 citationsOpen Access

Machine Learning for Immune Biomarkers in Severe Mental Illness: a systematic review

View Full Paper
RSRayan SlatniFCFederica ColomboPEPaolo Enrico

Key Points

  • The review aims to evaluate the use of machine learning algorithms in identifying immune biomarkers relevant to severe mental illnesses.
  • Conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic search of major databases including PubMed and Scopus.
  • Included 43 studies encompassing over 11,500 participants, focusing on different mental illness categories.
  • Analyzed immune biomarkers, machine learning algorithms, and their performance metrics across diverse clinical applications.
  • Machine learning models demonstrated moderate to high diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.650–0.990).
  • Findings showed pro-inflammatory markers were consistently notable across diagnoses.
  • Significant methodological variability limited the consistency and clinical applicability of the findings.

Abstract

The integration of machine learning (ML) approaches with immune biomarker research may facilitate the identification of candidate markers for achieving personalized medicine approaches in severe mental illnesses (SMI). This systematic review synthesizes the available evidence on ML algorithms applied to immune biomarkers in major depressive (MDD), bipolar (BD) and schizophrenic spectrum disorders (SZ), examining their performance across different clinical uses including diagnostic, prediction, monitoring, prognostic categories, in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration - Biomarker, EndpointS, and other Tools (FDA BEST) framework. We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO databases until 14 July 2025, including 43 eligible studies with a total sample of 11,556 participants, 8,339 with SMI (3228 MDD, 2614 BD and 2497 SZs) and 3217 healthy controls. We systematically described population, ML input data (including blood collection conditions, pre-processing steps, sample type, laboratory assay, missing data, and multimodality), and algorithms (supervised versus unsupervised models, feature selection, validation strategy, outcomes, and performance metrics). Overall, ML models showed moderate to high but heterogeneous performance. Diagnostic applications were the most common (AUC = 0.650–0.990), though predictive, monitoring, and prognostic uses were underrepresented and more variable. Across disorders, pro-inflammatory markers (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, IFN-γ, CRP) and IL-10 emerged most consistently, and data-driven approaches suggested shared immune subtypes beyond categorical diagnoses. However, substantial methodological and biological heterogeneity was observed, including inconsistent handling of missing data, limited external validation, and variable feature selection. Immunology-specific sources of variability (such as fasting status, circadian rhythms, and measurement batch effects) were rarely addressed, and the long-term stability of immune-based ML signatures remains largely unexplored. These gaps currently limit clinical translation and underscore the need for standardized protocols and more rigorous ML pipelines. • FDA BEST-guided machine learning review on immune markers in severe mental illness • Diagnostic models showed moderate-to-high performance (AUC 0.65-0.99) • Predictive, monitoring and prognostic uses showed more variable performance • Methodological heterogeneity limits clinical translation of machine learning models

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Slatni et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e9b89b85696592c86ebc48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nsa.2026.107003
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper