MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554790825 · doi:10.1097/hrp.0000000000000132

Predictive Neuroimaging Markers of Psychotherapy Response: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2554790825 on OpenAlexaff
Trisha Chakrabarty, John S. Ogrodniczuk, George Hadjipavlou

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsStornoway Diamond (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingAnterior cingulate cortexAnxietyPsycINFOPsychologyClinical psychologyInsulaMEDLINEMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Predictive neuroimaging markers of treatment response are increasingly sought in order to inform the treatment of major depressive and anxiety disorders. We review the existing literature regarding candidate predictive neuroimaging markers of psychotherapy response and assess their potential clinical utility. METHODS: We searched Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed up to October 2014 for studies correlating pretreatment neuroimaging parameters with psychotherapy response in major depressive and anxiety disorders. Our search yielded 40 eligible studies. RESULTS: The anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and anterior insula emerged as potential markers in major depressive disorder and some anxiety disorders. Results across studies displayed a large degree of variability, however, and to date the findings have not been systematically validated in independent clinical cohorts and have not been shown capable of distinguishing between medication and psychotherapy responders. Also limited is the examination of how neuroimaging compares or might add to other prognostic clinical variables. CONCLUSION: While the extant data suggest avenues of further investigation, we are still far from being able to use these markers clinically. Future studies need to focus on longitudinal testing of potential markers, determining their prescriptive value and examining how they might be integrated with clinical factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Review of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207