Predicting escitalopram treatment response from pre-treatment and early response resting state fMRI in a multi-site sample: A CAN-BIND-1 report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many previous intervention studies have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to predict the antidepressant response of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); however, practical constraints have limited many of those attempts to small, single centre studies which may not adequately reflect how these models will generalize when used in clinical practice. Not only does the act of collecting data at multiple sites generally increase sample sizes (a critical point in machine learning development) it also generates a more heterogeneous dataset due to systematic differences in scanners at different sites, and geographical differences in patient populations. As part of the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND-1) study, 144 MDD patients from six sites underwent resting state fMRI prior to starting escitalopram treatment, and again two weeks after the start. Here, we consider ways to use machine learning techniques to produce models that can predict response (measured at eight weeks after initiation), based on various parcellations, functional connectivity (FC) metrics, dimensionality reduction algorithms, and base learners, and also whether to use scans from one or both time points. Models that use only baseline (pre-treatment) or only week 2 (early-response) whole-brain FC features consistently failed to perform significantly better than default models. Utilizing the change in FC between these two time points, however, yielded significant results, with the best performing analytical pipeline achieving 69.6% (SD 10.8) accuracy. These results appear contrary to findings from many smaller single-site studies, which report substantially higher predictive accuracies from models trained on only baseline resting state FC features, suggesting these models may not generalize well beyond data used for development. Further, these results indicate the potential value of collecting data both before and shortly after treatment initiation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".