MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944181488 · doi:10.1111/pcn.12862

Automatic classification of major depression disorder using arterial spin labeling MRI perfusion measurements

2019· article· en· W2944181488 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderArterial spin labelingNeuroimagingArtificial intelligenceCerebral blood flowMultivariate statisticsSupport vector machineMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningComputer scienceInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Neuroimaging-based multivariate pattern-recognition methods have been successfully used to develop diagnostic algorithms to distinguish patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) from healthy controls (HC). We developed and evaluated the accuracy of a multivariate classification method for the differentiation of MDD and HC using cerebral blood flow (CBF) features measured by non-invasive arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI. METHODS: Twenty-two medication-free patients with the diagnosis of MDD based on DSM-IV criteria and 22 HC underwent pseudo-continuous 3-D-ASL imaging to assess CBF. Using an atlas-based approach, regional CBF was determined in various brain regions and used together with sex and age as classification features. A linear kernel support vector machine was used for feature ranking and selection as well as for the classification of patients with MDD and HC. Permutation testing was used to test for significance of the classification results. RESULTS: The automatic classifier based on CBF features showed a statistically significant accuracy of 77.3% (P = 0.004) with a specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 75% for classification of MDD versus HC. The features that contributed to the classification were sex and regional CBF of the cortical, limbic, and paralimbic regions. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning models based on CBF measurements are capable of differentiating MDD from HC with high accuracy. The use of larger study cohorts and inclusion of other imaging measures may improve the performance of the classifier to achieve the accuracy required for clinical application.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.269 · 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