MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789037897 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11289

Learning Differences Between Visual Scanning Patterns Can Disambiguate Bipolar and Unipolar Patients

2018· article· en· W2789037897 on OpenAlexafffund
Moshe Eizenman, Uros Rakita, Roger S. McIntyre, Peter Giacobbe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoNvidia
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)Convolutional neural networkComputer scienceBipolar disorderRecurrent neural networkMoodArtificial neural networkMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bipolar Disorder (BD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are two common and debilitating mood disorders. Misdiagnosing BD as MDD is relatively common and the introduction of markers to improve diagnostic accuracy early in the course of the illness has been identified as one of the top unmet needs in the field. In this paper, we present novel methods to differentiate between BD and MDD patients. The methods use deep learning techniques to quantify differences between visual scanning patterns of BD and MDD patients. In the methods, visual scanning patterns that are described by ordered sequences of fixations on emotional faces are encoded into a lower dimensional space and are fed into a long-short term memory recurrent neural network (RNN). Fixation sequences are encoded by three different methods: 1) using semantic regions of interests (RoIs) that are manually defined by experts, 2) using semi-automatically defined grids of RoIs, or 3) using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automatically extract visual features from saliency maps. Using data from 47 patients with MDD and 26 patients with BD we showed that using semantic RoIs, the RNN improved the performance of a baseline classifier from an AUC of 0.603 to an AUC of 0.878. Similarly using grid RoIs, the RNN improved the performance of a baseline classifier from an AUC of 0.450 to an AUC of 0.828. The classifier that automatically extracted visual features from saliency maps (a long recurrent convolutional network that is fully data-driven) had an AUC of 0.879. The results of the study suggest that by using RNNs to learn differences between fixation sequences the diagnosis of individual patients with BD or MDD can be disambiguated with high accuracy. Moreover, by using saliency maps and CNN to encode the fixation sequences the method can be fully automated and achieve high accuracy without relying on user expertise and/or manual labelling. When compared with other markers, the performance of the class of classifiers that was introduced in this paper is better than that of detectors that use differences in neural structures, neural activity or cortical hemodynamics to differentiate between BD and MDD patients. The novel use of RNNs to quantify differences between fixation sequences of patients with mood disorders can be easily generalized to studies of other neuropsychological disorders and to other fields such as psychology and advertising.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207