MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311301278 · doi:10.1101/2022.12.12.519838

Multimodal Imaging-Based Classification of PTSD Using Data-Driven Computational Approaches: A Multisite Big Data Study from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD Consortium

2022· preprint· en· W4311301278 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Zhu, Yoojean Kim, Orren Ravid, Xiaofu He, Benjamin Suarez‐Jimenez, Sigal Zilcha‐Mano, Amit Lazarov, Seonjoo Lee, Chadi G. Abdallah, Christopher L. Averill, C. Lexi Baird, Lee A. Baugh, Jennifer Urbano Blackford, Jessica Bomyea, Steven E. Bruce, Richard A. Bryant, Zhihong Cao, Kyle Choi, Josh M. Cisler, Andrew S. Cotton, Judith K. Daniels, Nicholas D. Davenport, Richard J. Davidson, Michael D. DeBellis, Emily L. Dennis, Maria Densmore, Terri A. deRoon‐Cassini, Seth G. Disner, Wissam El‐Hage, Amit Etkin, Negar Fani, Kelene A. Fercho, Jacklynn M. Fitzgerald, Gina L. Forster, Jessie L. Frijling, Elbert Geuze, A. Gönenç, Evan M. Gordon, Staci A. Gruber, Daniel W. Grupe, Jeffrey P. Guenette, Courtney C. Haswell, Ryan J. Herringa, Julia Herzog, David Hofmann, Bobak Hosseini, Anna R. Hudson, Ashley A. Huggins, Jonathan Ipser, Neda Jahanshad, Meilin Jia-Richards, Tanja Jovanović, Milissa L. Kaufman, Mitzy Kennis, Anthony P. King, Philipp Kinzel, Saskia B.J. Koch, Inga K. Koerte, Sheri‐Michelle Koopowitz, Mayuresh S. Korgaonkar, John H. Krystal, Ruth A. Lanius, Christine L. Larson, Lauren A. M. Lebois, Gen Li, Israel Liberzon, Guangming Lu, Yifeng Luo, Vincent A. Magnotta, Antje Manthey, Adi Maron‐Katz, Geoffery May, Katie A. McLaughlin, Sven C. Mueller, Laura Nawijn, Richard W. J. Neufeld, Jack B. Nitschke, Erin N. O’Leary, Bunmi O. Olatunji, Miranda Olff, Matthew Peverill, K. Luan Phan, Rongfeng Qi, Yann Quidé, Ivan Rektor, Kerry J. Ressler, Pavel Říha, Marisa Ross, Isabelle M. Rosso, Lauren E. Salminen, Kelly Sambrook, Christian Schmahl, Martha E. Shenton, Margaret A. Sheridan, Chia-Hao Shih, Maurizio Sicorello, Anika Sierk, Alan N. Simmons, Raluca M. Simons, Jeffrey S. Simons, Scott R. Sponheim, Murray B. Stein, Dan J. Stein, Jennifer S. Stevens, Thomas Straube, Delin Sun, Jean Théberge, Paul M. Thompson, Sophia I. Thomopoulos, Nic J.A. van der Wee, Steven J.A. van der Werff, Theo G.M. van Erp, Sanne J.H. van Rooij, Mirjam van Zuiden, Tim Varkevisser, Dick J. Veltman, Robert Vermeiren, Henrik Walter, Li Wang, Xin Wang, Carissa Weis, Sherry Winternitz, Hong Xie, Ye Zhu, Melanie M. Wall, Yuval Neria, Rajendra A. Morey

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryNeuroimagingArtificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningModality (human–computer interaction)Computer scienceMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Current clinical assessments of Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rely solely on subjective symptoms and experiences reported by the patient, rather than objective biomarkers of the illness. Recent advances in data-driven computational approaches have been helpful in devising tools to objectively diagnose psychiatric disorders. Here we aimed to classify individuals with PTSD versus controls using heterogeneous brain datasets from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD Working group. Methods We analyzed brain MRI data from 3,527 structural-MRI; 2,502 resting state-fMRI; and 1,953 diffusion-MRI. First, we identified the brain features that best distinguish individuals with PTSD from controls (TEHC and HC) using traditional machine learning methods. Second, we assessed the utility of the denoising variational autoencoder (DVAE) and evaluated its classification performance. Third, we assessed the generalizability and reproducibility of both models using leave-one-site-out cross-validation procedure for each modality. Results We found lower performance in classifying PTSD vs. controls with data from over 20 sites (60% test AUC for s-MRI, 59% for rs-fMRI and 56% for d-MRI), as compared to other studies run on single-site data. The performance increased when classifying PTSD from HC without trauma history across all three modalities (75% AUC). The classification performance remained intact when applying the DVAE framework, which reduced the number of features. Finally, we found that the DVAE framework achieved better generalization to unseen datasets compared with the traditional machine learning frameworks, albeit performance was slightly above chance. Conclusion Our findings highlight the promise offered by machine learning methods for the diagnosis of patients with PTSD. The utility of brain biomarkers across three MRI modalities and the contribution of DVAE models for improving generalizability offers new insights into neural mechanisms involved in PTSD. Significance ⍰ Classifying PTSD from trauma-unexposed healthy controls (HC) using three imaging modalities performed well (∼75% AUC), but performance suffered markedly when classifying PTSD from trauma-exposed healthy controls (TEHC) using three imaging modalities (∼60% AUC). ⍰ Using deep learning for feature reduction (denoising variational auto-encoder; DVAE) dramatically reduced the number of features with no concomitant performance degradation. ⍰ Utilizing denoising variational autoencoder (DVAE) models improves generalizability across heterogeneous multi-site data compared with the traditional machine learning frameworks

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→