Cited by 128Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesStress Responses and Cortisol

A review of selected candidate endophenotypes for depression

Open access
Goldstein, Brandon L., Klein, Daniel N.·2014·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Endophenotypes are proposed to occupy an intermediate position in the pathway between genotype and phenotype in genetically complex disorders such as depression. To be considered an endophenotype, a construct must meet a set of criteria proposed by Gottesman and Gould (2003). In this qualitative review, we summarize evidence for each criterion for several putative endophenotypes for depression: neuroticism, morning cortisol, frontal asymmetry of cortical electrical activity, reward learning, and biases of attention and memory. Our review indicates that while there is strong support for some depression endophenotypes, other putative endophenotypes lack data or have inconsistent findings for core criteria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.003

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Blunted reward learning has been observed in both individuals with current and remitted MDD.

    “Second, blunted reward learning—defined as a diminished ability to modulate behavior as a function of rewards—has been observed in both individuals with current and remitted MDD (Goldstein and Klein, 2014; Pechtel et al, 2013; Pizzagalli, 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldstein, B. L., & Klein, D. N.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Goldstein, Brandon L.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
417-427
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054077215
Cited by
128
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH069942)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
endophenotypes, depression, neuroticism, cortisol, morning cortisol, frontal alpha asymmetry, reward learning, attentional bias, memory bias, genotype-phenotype correlation, genetic susceptibility
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Memory, Reward, Endophenotypes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review