Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous disease which is why there are currently no specific methods to accurately test the severity, endophenotype or therapy response. This lack of progress is partly attributed to the complexity and variability of depression, in association with analytical variability of clinical literature and the wide number of theoretically complex biomarkers. The literature accessible, indicates that markers involved in inflammatory, neurotrophic and metabolic processes and components of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine systems are rather strong indicators to be considered clinically and can be measured through genetic and epigenetic, transcriptomic and proteomic, metabolomics and neuroimaging assessments. Promising biologic systems/markers found were i.e., growth biomarkers, endocrine markers, oxidant stress markers, proteomic and chronic inflammatory markers, are discussed in this review.Several lines of evidence suggest that a portion of MDD is a dopamine agonist-responsive subtype. This review analyzes concise reports on the pathophysiological biomarkers of MDD and therapeutic reactions via peripheral developmental factors, inflammative cytokines, endocrine factors and metabolic markers. Various literatures also support that endocrine and metabolism changes are associated with MDD. Accumulating evidence suggests that at least a portion of MDD patients show characteristics pathological changes regarding different clinical pathological biomarkers. By this review we sum up all the different biomarkers playing an important role in the detection or treatment of the different patients suffering from MDD. The review also gives an overview of different biomarker’s playing a potential role in modulating effect of MDD.

In the context of ARVC, a systematic review of the validation of the ARVC risk score can provide insights into the accuracy and reliability of this score in identifying patients at high risk of ARVC. Digital databases were searched to identify the relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 8 studies were included in this review. The review found that the sensitivity of the ARVC risk scores ranged from 80 to 95%, and the specificity ranged from 31 to 79%. The PPV was 55%, and the NPV was 88%. The ARVC score provided a C-index for a 5-year VA risk prediction of 0.84 [95% CI (0.74–0.93)] and a Harrell C-index of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65–0.75). The calibration slope was 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.03). ARVC score demonstrated a significant event 5-year threshold between 15 and 20% and the classical ARVC 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.76(0.66–0.89) and the non-classical form 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.58 (0.43–0.78). In conclusion, the validation of ARVC risk scores is an essential step toward improving the accuracy of ARVC diagnosis and risk stratification. Further studies are needed to establish the accuracy and reliability of ARVC risk scores and to address the limitations of the current evidence.