MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317401750 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.17.523348

Normative modeling of brain morphometry in Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis

2023· preprint· en· W4317401750 on OpenAlexaff
Shalaila S. Haas, Ruiyang Ge, Ingrid Agartz, G. Paul Amminger, Ole A. Andreassen, Peter Bachman, Inmaculada Baeza, Sunah Choi, Tiziano Colibazzi, Vanessa Cropley, Camilo de la Fuente‐Sandoval, Bjørn H. Ebdrup, Adriana Fortea, Paolo Fusar‐Poli, Birte Glenthøj, Louise Birkedal Glenthøj, Kristen M. Haut, Rebecca A. Hayes, Karsten Heekeren, Christine I. Hooker, Wu Jeong Hwang, Neda Jahanshad, Michael Kaess, Kiyoto Kasai, Naoyuki Katagiri, Minah Kim, Jochen Kindler, Shinsuke Koike, Tina Dam Kristensen, Jun Soo Kwon, Stephen M. Lawrie, Jimmy Lee, Imke Lemmers-Jansen, Ashleigh Lin, Xiaoqian Ma, Daniel H. Mathalon, Philip McGuire, Chantal Michel, Romina Mizrahi, Masafumi Mizuno, Paul Møller, Ricardo Mora-Durán, Barnaby Nelson, Takahiro Nemoto, Merete Nordentoft, Dorte Nordholm, M. A. Оmelchenkо, Christos Pantelis, José C. Pariente, Jayachandra M. Raghava, Francisco Reyes-Madrigal, Jan Ivar Røssberg, Wulf Rössler, Dean F. Salisbury, Daiki Sasabayashi, Ulrich Schall, Lukasz Smigielski, Gisela Sugranyes, Michio Suzuki, Tsutomu Takahashi, Christian K. Tamnes, Anastasia Theodoridou, Sophia I. Thomopoulos, Paul M. Thompson, A. S. Tomyshev, Peter J. Uhlhaas, Tor Gunnar Værnes, Thérèse A. van Amelsvoort, Theo G.M. van Erp, James A. Waltz, Christina Wenneberg, Lars T. Westlye, Stephen J. Wood, Juan Zhou, Dennis Hernaus, Maria Jalbrzikowski, René S. Kahn, Cheryl M. Corcoran, Sophia Frangou

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilSistema Nacional de InvestigadoresMedical Research CouncilNational Research Foundation of KoreaKorea Health Industry Development InstituteNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfondenConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Medical Research CouncilNational Research FoundationKorea Brain Research InstituteMoonshot Research and Development ProgramNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionJapan Agency for Medical Research and DevelopmentMedical Center, University of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsPsychosisNormativePsychologyPopulationCognitionAssociation (psychology)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance The lack of robust neuroanatomical markers of psychosis risk has been traditionally attributed to heterogeneity. A complementary hypothesis is that variation in neuroanatomical measures in the majority of individuals at psychosis risk may be nested within the range observed in healthy individuals. Objective To quantify deviations from the normative range of neuroanatomical variation in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR-P) and evaluate their overlap with healthy variation and their association with positive symptoms, cognition, and conversion to a psychotic disorder. Design, Setting, and Participants Clinical, IQ and FreeSurfer-derived regional measures of cortical thickness (CT), cortical surface area (SA), and subcortical volume (SV) from 1,340 CHR-P individuals [47.09% female; mean age: 20.75 (4.74) years] and 1,237 healthy individuals [44.70% female; mean age: 22.32 (4.95) years] from 29 international sites participating in the ENIGMA Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Working Group. Main Outcomes and Measures For each regional morphometric measure, z-scores were computed that index the degree of deviation from the normative means of that measure in a healthy reference population (N=37,407). Average deviation scores (ADS) for CT, SA, SV, and globally across all measures (G) were generated by averaging the respective regional z-scores. Regression analyses were used to quantify the association of deviation scores with clinical severity and cognition and two-proportion z-tests to identify case-control differences in the proportion of individuals with infranormal (z<-1.96) or supranormal (z>1.96) scores. Results CHR-P and healthy individuals overlapped in the distributions of the observed values, regional z-scores, and all ADS vales. The proportion of CHR-P individuals with infranormal or supranormal values in any metric was low (<12%) and similar to that of healthy individuals. CHR-P individuals who converted to psychosis compared to those who did not convert had a higher percentage of infranormal values in temporal regions (5-7% vs 0.9-1.4%). In the CHR-P group, only the ADS SA showed significant but weak associations (|β|<0.09; P FDR <0.05) with positive symptoms and IQ. Conclusions and Relevance The study findings challenge the usefulness of macroscale neuromorphometric measures as diagnostic biomarkers of psychosis risk and suggest that such measures do not provide an adequate explanation for psychosis risk. Key points Question Is the risk of psychosis associated with brain morphometric changes that deviate significantly from healthy variation? Findings In this study of 1340 individuals high-risk for psychosis (CHR-P) and 1237 healthy participants, individual-level variation in macroscale neuromorphometric measures of the CHR-P group was largely nested within healthy variation and was not associated with the severity of positive psychotic symptoms or conversion to a psychotic disorder. Meaning The findings suggest the macroscale neuromorphometric measures have limited utility as diagnostic biomarkers of psychosis risk.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→