Machine Learning Predicts Treatment Response in Bipolar & Major Depressive Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) patients with complex symptoms presents a challenge to clinicians. Patients tend to spend more time in a depressive state than a manic state. In such complex cases, the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which is not based on pathophysiology, can lead to misdiagnosis as major depressive disorder (MDD) and an imperfect or even harmful medication response. A biologically-based classification algorithm is needed to improve the accuracy of diagnosis. Osuch et al. (2018) presented a kernel support vector machine (SVM) algorithm to predict the medication-class of response from new patient samples whose diagnoses were unclear. Here we also utilize the kernel support vector machine (SVM) algorithm but with a few novel contributions. We applied the robust, fully automated neuromark independent component analysis (ICA) framework to extract comparable features in a multi-dataset setting and learn a kernel function for support vector machine (SVM) on multiple feature subspaces. The neuromark framework successfully replicates the prior result with 95.45% accuracy (sensitivity 90.24%, specificity 92.3%). To further evaluate the generalizability of our approach, we incorporated two additional datasets comprising bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) patients. We validated the trained algorithm on these datasets, resulting in a testing accuracy of up to 89% (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.89) without using site or scanner harmonization techniques. We also translated the model to predict improvement scores of major depressive disorder (MDD) with up to 70% accuracy. This approach reveals some salient biological markers of medication-class of response within mood disorders. Highlights We demonstrate a DSM-free approach for predicting treatment response from resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. We identify several replicable biomarkers using the approach. Our work has potential for clinical application by replacing trial-and-error in treating complex psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".