Machine learning and big data analytics in bipolar disorder: A position paper from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Big Data Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The International Society for Bipolar Disorders Big Data Task Force assembled leading researchers in the field of bipolar disorder (BD), machine learning, and big data with extensive experience to evaluate the rationale of machine learning and big data analytics strategies for BD. METHOD: A task force was convened to examine and integrate findings from the scientific literature related to machine learning and big data based studies to clarify terminology and to describe challenges and potential applications in the field of BD. We also systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published up to January 2019 that used machine learning in BD. RESULTS: The results suggested that big data analytics has the potential to provide risk calculators to aid in treatment decisions and predict clinical prognosis, including suicidality, for individual patients. This approach can advance diagnosis by enabling discovery of more relevant data-driven phenotypes, as well as by predicting transition to the disorder in high-risk unaffected subjects. We also discuss the most frequent challenges that big data analytics applications can face, such as heterogeneity, lack of external validation and replication of some studies, cost and non-stationary distribution of the data, and lack of appropriate funding. CONCLUSION: Machine learning-based studies, including atheoretical data-driven big data approaches, provide an opportunity to more accurately detect those who are at risk, parse-relevant phenotypes as well as inform treatment selection and prognosis. However, several methodological challenges need to be addressed in order to translate research findings to clinical settings.
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 | 0.085 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".