MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183394006 · doi:10.1093/brain/awab284

Structuro-functional surrogates of response to subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for depression

2021· article· en· W3183394006 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin J.B. Elias, Jürgen Germann, Alexandre Boutet, Aditya Pancholi, Michelle E. Beyn, Kartik Bhatia, Clemens Neudorfer, Aaron Loh, Sakina J. Rizvi, Venkat Bhat, Peter Giacobbe, D. Blake Woodside, Sidney H. Kennedy, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalKrembil FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCingulate cortexAnterior cingulate cortexDeep brain stimulationWhite matterPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyCognitionCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation produces long-term clinical improvement in approximately half of patients with severe treatment-resistant depression. We hypothesized that both structural and functional brain attributes may be important in determining responsiveness to this therapy. In a treatment-resistant depression subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation cohort, we retrospectively examined baseline and longitudinal differences in MRI-derived brain volume (n = 65) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET glucose metabolism (n = 21) between responders and non-responders. Support vector machines were subsequently trained to classify patients' response status based on extracted baseline imaging features. A machine learning model incorporating preoperative frontopolar, precentral/frontal opercular and orbitofrontal local volume values classified binary response status (12 months) with 83% accuracy [leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV): 80% accuracy] and explained 32% of the variance in continuous clinical improvement. It was also predictive in an out-of-sample subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation cohort (n = 21) with differing primary indications (bipolar disorder/anorexia nervosa; 76% accuracy). Adding preoperative glucose metabolism information from rostral anterior cingulate cortex and temporal pole improved model performance, enabling it to predict response status in the treatment-resistant depression cohort with 86% accuracy (LOOCV: 81% accuracy) and explain 67% of clinical variance. Response-related patterns of metabolic and structural post-deep brain stimulation change were also observed, especially in anterior cingulate cortex and neighbouring white matter. Areas where responders differed from non-responders-both at baseline and longitudinally-largely overlapped with depression-implicated white matter tracts, namely uncinate fasciculus, cingulum bundle and forceps minor/rostrum of corpus callosum. The extent of patient-specific engagement of these same tracts (according to electrode location and stimulation parameters) also served as an independent predictor of treatment-resistant depression response status (72% accuracy; LOOCV: 70% accuracy) and augmented performance of the volume-based (88% accuracy; LOOCV: 82% accuracy) and combined volume/metabolism-based support vector machines (100% accuracy; LOOCV: 94% accuracy). Taken together, these results indicate that responders and non-responders to subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation exhibit differences in brain volume and metabolism, both pre- and post-surgery. Moreover, baseline imaging features predict response to treatment (particularly when combined with information about local tract engagement) and could inform future patient selection and other clinical decisions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207