Two neurostructural subtypes: results of machine learning on brain images from 4,291 individuals with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning can be used to define subtypes of psychiatric conditions based on shared clinical and biological foundations, presenting a crucial step toward establishing biologically based subtypes of mental disorders. With the goal of identifying subtypes of disease progression in schizophrenia, here we analyzed cross-sectional brain structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 4,291 individuals with schizophrenia (1,709 females, age=32.5 years±11.9) and 7,078 healthy controls (3,461 females, age=33.0 years±12.7) pooled across 41 international cohorts from the ENIGMA Schizophrenia Working Group, non-ENIGMA cohorts and public datasets. Using a machine learning approach known as Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn), we implemented a brain imaging-driven classification that identifies two distinct neurostructural subgroups by mapping the spatial and temporal trajectory of gray matter (GM) loss in schizophrenia. Subgroup 1 (n=2,622) was characterized by an early cortical-predominant loss (ECL) with enlarged striatum, whereas subgroup 2 (n=1,600) displayed an early subcortical-predominant loss (ESL) in the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, brain stem and striatum. These reconstructed trajectories suggest that the GM volume reduction originates in the Broca's area/adjacent fronto-insular cortex for ECL and in the hippocampus/adjacent medial temporal structures for ESL. With longer disease duration, the ECL subtype exhibited a gradual worsening of negative symptoms and depression/anxiety, and less of a decline in positive symptoms. We confirmed the reproducibility of these imaging-based subtypes across various sample sites, independent of macroeconomic and ethnic factors that differed across these geographic locations, which include Europe, North America and East Asia. These findings underscore the presence of distinct pathobiological foundations underlying schizophrenia. This new imaging-based taxonomy holds the potential to identify a more homogeneous sub-population of individuals with shared neurobiological attributes, thereby suggesting the viability of redefining existing disorder constructs based on biological factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".