MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419550492 · doi:10.1503/jpn.140142

Using structural MRI to identify individuals at genetic risk for bipolar disorders: a 2-cohort, machine learning study

2015· article· en· W2419550492 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tomáš Hájek, Christopher Cooke, Miloslav Kopeček, Tomáš Novák, Cyril Höschl, Martin Alda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroimagingProbandGrey matterPrecuneusWhite matterInferior frontal gyrusPsychologyBipolar disorderCohortMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitionBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brain imaging is of limited diagnostic use in psychiatry owing to clinical heterogeneity and low sensitivity/specificity of between-group neuroimaging differences. Machine learning (ML) may better translate neuroimaging to the level of individual participants. Studying unaffected offspring of parents with bipolar disorders (BD) decreases clinical heterogeneity and thus increases sensitivity for detection of biomarkers. The present study used ML to identify individuals at genetic high risk (HR) for BD based on brain structure. METHODS: We studied unaffected and affected relatives of BD probands recruited from 2 sites (Halifax, Canada, and Prague, Czech Republic). Each participant was individually matched by age and sex to controls without personal or family history of psychiatric disorders. We applied support vector machines (SVM) and Gaussian process classifiers (GPC) to structural MRI. RESULTS: We included 45 unaffected and 36 affected relatives of BD probands matched by age and sex on an individual basis to healthy controls. The SVM of white matter distinguished unaffected HR from control participants (accuracy = 68.9%, p = 0.001), with similar accuracy for the GPC (65.6%, p = 0.002) or when analyzing data from each site separately. Differentiation of the more clinically heterogeneous affected familiar group from healthy controls was less accurate (accuracy = 59.7%, p = 0.05). Machine learning applied to grey matter did not distinguish either the unaffected HR or affected familial groups from controls. The regions that most contributed to between-group discrimination included white matter of the inferior/middle frontal gyrus, inferior/middle temporal gyrus and precuneus. LIMITATIONS: Although we recruited 126 participants, ML benefits from even larger samples. CONCLUSION: Machine learning applied to white but not grey matter distinguished unaffected participants at high and low genetic risk for BD based on regions previously implicated in the pathophysiology of BD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207