MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026093439 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaa029.581

T21. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTEOMIC PREDICTION MODELS FOR OUTCOMES IN THE CLINICAL HIGH RISK STATE AND PSYCHOTIC EXPERIENCES IN ADOLESCENCE: MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSES IN TWO NESTED CASE-CONTROL STUDIES

2020· article· en· W3026093439 on OpenAlexaff
David Mongan, Melanie Föcking, Colm Healy, Subash Raj Susai, Gerard Cagney, Mary Cannon, Stanley Zammit, Barnaby Nelson, Patrick D. McGorry, Merete Nordentoft, Marie‐Odile Krebs, Anita Riecher‐Rössler, Rodrigo A. Bressan, Neus Barrantes‐Vidal, Stefan Borgwardt, Stephan Ruhrmann, Gabriele Sachs, Mark van der Gaag, Bart P. F. Rutten, Christos Pantelis, Lieuwe de Haan, Lucia Valmaggia, Matthew J. Kempton, Philip McGuire, David Cotter

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisSubclinical infectionPsychologyBody mass indexSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) of psychosis have an approximately 20% probability of developing psychosis within 2 years, as well as an associated risk of non-psychotic disorders and functional impairment. People with subclinical psychotic experiences (PEs) are also at risk of future psychotic and non-psychotic disorders and decreased functioning. It is difficult to accurately predict outcomes in individuals at risk of psychosis on the basis of symptoms alone. Biomarkers for accurate prediction of outcomes could inform the clinical management of this group. Methods We conducted two nested case-control studies. We employed discovery-based proteomic methods to analyse protein expression in baseline plasma samples in EU-GEI and age 12 plasma samples in ALSPAC using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Differential expression of quantified proteomic markers was determined by analyses of covariance (with false discovery rate of 5%) comparing expression levels for each marker between those who did not and did not develop psychosis in Study 1 (adjusting for age, gender, body mass index and years in education), and between those who did and did not develop PEs in Study 2 (adjusting for gender, body mass index and maternal social class). Support vector machine algorithms were used to develop models for prediction of transition vs. non-transition (as determined by the Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States) and poor vs. good functional outcome at 2 years in Study 1 (General Assessment of Functioning: Disability subscale score </=60 vs. >60). Similar algorithms were used to develop a model for prediction of PEs vs. no PEs at age 18 in Study 2 (as determined by the Psychosis Like Symptoms Interview). Results In Study 1, 35 of 166 quantified proteins were significantly differentially expressed between CHR participants who did and did not develop psychosis. Functional enrichment analysis provided evidence for particular implication of the complement and coagulation cascade (false discovery rate-adjusted Fisher’s exact test p=2.23E-21). Using 65 clinical and 166 proteomic features a model demonstrated excellent performance for prediction of transition status (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC] 0.96, positive predictive value [PPV] 83.0%, negative predictive value [NPV] 93.8%). A model based on the ten most predictive proteins accurately predicted transition status in training (AUC 0.96, PPV 87.5%, NPV 95.8%) and withheld data (AUC 0.92, PPV 88.9%, NPV 91.4%). A model using the same 65 clinical and 166 proteomic features predicted 2-year functional outcome with AUC 0.72 (PPV 67.6%, NPV 47.6%). In Study 2, 5 of 265 quantified proteins were significantly differentially expressed between participants who did and did not report PEs at age 18. A model using 265 proteomic features predicted PEs at age 18 with AUC 0.76 (PPV 69.1%, NPV 74.2%). Discussion With external validation, models incorporating proteomic data may contribute to improved prediction of clinical outcomes in individuals at risk of psychosis.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207