MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neuroimaging-based classification of PTSD using data-driven computational approaches: A multisite big data study from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD consortium

2023· article· en· W4387745684 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 Wall, Yuval Neria, Rajendra A. Morey

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftRehabilitation Research and Development ServiceNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionVanderbilt UniversityBrain and Behavior Research FoundationInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMcLean HospitalU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryNeuroimagingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningModality (human–computer interaction)Computer scienceGeneralizationPsychologyPsychiatryMathematicsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in data-driven computational approaches have been helpful in devising tools to objectively diagnose psychiatric disorders. However, current machine learning studies limited to small homogeneous samples, different methodologies, and different imaging collection protocols, limit the ability to directly compare and generalize their results. Here we aimed to classify individuals with PTSD versus controls and assess the generalizability using a large heterogeneous brain datasets from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD Working group. METHODS: We analyzed brain MRI data from 3,477 structural-MRI; 2,495 resting state-fMRI; and 1,952 diffusion-MRI. First, we identified the brain features that best distinguish individuals with PTSD from controls 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 in each modality (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: These results have the potential to provide a baseline classification performance for PTSD when using large scale neuroimaging datasets. Our findings show that the control group used can heavily affect classification performance. The DVAE framework provided better generalizability for the multi-site data. This may be more significant in clinical practice since the neuroimaging-based diagnostic DVAE classification models are much less site-specific, rendering them more generalizable.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.522
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→