Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict cognitive behavioral therapy outcome in obsessive-compulsive disorder using clinical and neuroimaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but clinical response is difficult to predict. In this study, we aimed to develop predictive models using clinical and neuroimaging data from the multicenter Enhancing Neuro-Imaging and Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-OCD consortium. Baseline clinical and resting-state functional magnetic imaging (rs-fMRI) data from 159 adult patients aged 18-60 years (88 female) with OCD who received CBT at four treatment/neuroimaging sites were included. Fractional amplitude of low frequency fluctuations, regional homogeneity and atlas-based functional connectivity were computed. Clinical CBT response and remission were predicted using support vector machine and random forest classifiers on clinical data only, rs-fMRI data only, and the combination of both clinical and rs-fMRI data. The use of only clinical data yielded an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.69 for predicting remission (p=0.001). Lower baseline symptom severity, younger age, an absence of cleaning obsessions, unmedicated status, and higher education had the highest model impact in predicting remission. The best predictive performance using only rs-fMRI was obtained with regional homogeneity for remission (AUC=0.59). Predicting response with rsf-MRI generally did not exceed chance level. Machine learning models based on clinical data may thus hold promise in predicting remission after CBT for OCD, but the predictive power of multicenter rs-fMRI data is limited.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".