Towards Precision Medicine in Psychosis: Benefits and Challenges of Multimodal Multicenter Studies—PSYSCAN: Translating Neuroimaging Findings From Research into Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 2 decades, several neuroimaging studies investigated brain abnormalities associated with the early stages of psychosis in the hope that these could aid the prediction of onset and clinical outcome. Despite advancements in the field, neuroimaging has yet to deliver. This is in part explained by the use of univariate analytical techniques, small samples and lack of statistical power, lack of external validation of potential biomarkers, and lack of integration of nonimaging measures (eg, genetic, clinical, cognitive data). PSYSCAN is an international, longitudinal, multicenter study on the early stages of psychosis which uses machine learning techniques to analyze imaging, clinical, cognitive, and biological data with the aim of facilitating the prediction of psychosis onset and outcome. In this article, we provide an overview of the PSYSCAN protocol and we discuss benefits and methodological challenges of large multicenter studies that employ neuroimaging measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.460 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".