MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2938512278 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz022.053

14. IS BIGGER BETTER? PROMISES AND PITFALLS OF BIG DATA IN NEUROIMAGING OF PSYCHOSIS

2019· article· en· W2938512278 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ofer Pasternak

Notice bibliographique

RevueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeuroimagingBig dataData sciencePsychosisComputer scienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Scope (computer science)Machine learningArtificial intelligencePsychologyPsychiatryData mining

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Big neuroimaging datasets comprising hundreds or even thousands of subjects are becoming widely available, thanks to major collaborative efforts across multiple imaging centers and groups. Mining and analyzing Big-Data is also becoming feasible, owing to increased computational power and new implementations of machine learning algorithms, which can learn from data and generate predictions. Big-Data studies bear exceptional promise in disentangling complex psychiatric illness, including psychosis, where imaging correlates are often subtle and difficult to reproduce. Large datasets, combined with novel machine learning algorithms have opened avenues for delineating subtypes, as well as for predicting biological and clinical outcomes, including psychosis conversion and drug response. However, the use of Big-Data generates challenges in terms of design, construction and statistical analyses. One such problem presented by current studies relates to harmonizing neuroimaging signals across multiple centers or sites, as no current gold standard exists. Moreover, harmonizing disparate populations could introduce unwanted covariables, and potentially attenuate psychosis-related effects. Additional challenge relates to incomplete or incompatible clinical information between different study sites, which diminishes usable clinical measures and in turn, the clinical scope of Big-data studies. This symposium is designed to address the practical and theoretical aspects of acquiring and analyzing large neuroimaging studies in psychosis and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. We will describe new and exciting opportunities that come with Big-Data studies, as well as the pitfalls limiting current methods. Throughout, we will provide practical recommendations to maximize the potential of big-data. In addition, we will explore the current tradeoff between Big-data studies that bolster sensitivity and smaller studies, which enable nuanced investigation of homogenous populations and specific imaging markers to elucidate underlying pathologies in psychosis. We argue that both Big and small data play important roles in our effort to understand psychosis and its treatment. This symposium will bring together five leading neuroimagers, who will present different aspects of Big versus small data studies, while providing critical cautionary remarks regarding the shortcomings of these methods: 1) Prof. Neda Jahanshad, PhD, of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, is a key player in the ENIGMA network, and its Big-Data that was constructed through meta analyses. She will present key findings from the ENIGMA studies, as well as important technical considerations that arise in the meta-analysis process, including combining clinical information across multiple study sites. 2) Prof. Bo (Cloud) Cao, PhD, of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Alberta, Canada, is an expert in the modification and application of machine learning approaches for imaging studies. He will present state-of-the-art prediction algorithms and describe the advantages of combining these algorithms with Big-Data in psychosis studies. 3) Prof. Jennifer Coughlin, MD, of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University applies novel PET radioligands that are developed to specifically target molecules relevant to biological pathophysiology. She will present her work in psychosis, highlighting the important role of smaller, yet more specific studies. 4) Prof. Ofer Pasternak, PhD, of the Departments of Psychiatry and Radiology, Harvard Medical School, is a developer of more-specific MRI measures, and has been designing acquisition protocols for large multi-site studies. He will present recent advances in the harmonization of diffusion MRI data, and discuss the trade-off between small imaging studies and large harmonized imaging studies. The discussant will be Prof. Carrie Bearden, PhD. Department of Psychology, UCLA. Dr. Bearden had leading roles in a number of large imaging studies (e.g., NAPLS, ENIGMA, ABCD) as well as smaller studies. She will complement the panel by bringing in a more clinical point of view, informed of the practical needs of neuroscientists who are considering entering large multi-site studies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,125
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,875
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,659

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1250,210
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,018
Communication savante0,0160,053
Science ouverte0,0050,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0120,019
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSchizophrenia BulletinMême sujetFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesTravaux en français237 207