TY - JOUR
T1 - Applications of machine learning algorithms to predict therapeutic outcomes in depression
T2 - A meta-analysis and systematic review
AU - Lee, Yena
AU - Ragguett, Renee Marie
AU - Mansur, Rodrigo B.
AU - Boutilier, Justin J.
AU - Rosenblat, Joshua D.
AU - Trevizol, Alisson
AU - Brietzke, Elisa
AU - Lin, Kangguang
AU - Pan, Zihang
AU - Subramaniapillai, Mehala
AU - Chan, Timothy C.Y.
AU - Fus, Dominika
AU - Park, Caroline
AU - Musial, Natalie
AU - Zuckerman, Hannah
AU - Chen, Vincent Chin Hung
AU - Ho, Roger
AU - Rong, Carola
AU - McIntyre, Roger S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/12/1
Y1 - 2018/12/1
N2 - Background: No previous study has comprehensively reviewed the application of machine learning algorithms in mood disorders populations. Herein, we qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate previous studies of machine learning-devised models that predict therapeutic outcomes in mood disorders populations. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed from inception to February 8, 2018 for relevant studies that included adults with bipolar or unipolar depression; assessed therapeutic outcomes with a pharmacological, neuromodulatory, or manual-based psychotherapeutic intervention for depression; applied a machine learning algorithm; and reported predictors of therapeutic response. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 639 records: 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility; 26 studies (n=17,499) and 20 studies (n=6325) were included in qualitative and quantitative review, respectively. Classification algorithms were able to predict therapeutic outcomes with an overall accuracy of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] of [0.77, 0.87]). Pooled estimates of classification accuracy were significantly greater (p < 0.01) in models informed by multiple data types (e.g., composite of phenomenological patient features and neuroimaging or peripheral gene expression data; pooled proportion [95% CI] = 0.93[0.86, 0.97]) when compared to models with lower-dimension data types (pooledproportion=0.68[0.62,0.74]to0.85[0.81,0.88]). Limitations: Most studies were retrospective; differences in machine learning algorithms and their implementation (e.g., cross-validation, hyperparameter tuning); cannot infer importance of individual variables fed into learning algorithm. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms provide a powerful conceptual and analytic framework capable of integrating multiple data types and sources. An integrative approach may more effectively model neurobiological components as functional modules of pathophysiology embedded within the complex, social dynamics that influence the phenomenology of mental disorders.
AB - Background: No previous study has comprehensively reviewed the application of machine learning algorithms in mood disorders populations. Herein, we qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate previous studies of machine learning-devised models that predict therapeutic outcomes in mood disorders populations. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed from inception to February 8, 2018 for relevant studies that included adults with bipolar or unipolar depression; assessed therapeutic outcomes with a pharmacological, neuromodulatory, or manual-based psychotherapeutic intervention for depression; applied a machine learning algorithm; and reported predictors of therapeutic response. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 639 records: 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility; 26 studies (n=17,499) and 20 studies (n=6325) were included in qualitative and quantitative review, respectively. Classification algorithms were able to predict therapeutic outcomes with an overall accuracy of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] of [0.77, 0.87]). Pooled estimates of classification accuracy were significantly greater (p < 0.01) in models informed by multiple data types (e.g., composite of phenomenological patient features and neuroimaging or peripheral gene expression data; pooled proportion [95% CI] = 0.93[0.86, 0.97]) when compared to models with lower-dimension data types (pooledproportion=0.68[0.62,0.74]to0.85[0.81,0.88]). Limitations: Most studies were retrospective; differences in machine learning algorithms and their implementation (e.g., cross-validation, hyperparameter tuning); cannot infer importance of individual variables fed into learning algorithm. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms provide a powerful conceptual and analytic framework capable of integrating multiple data types and sources. An integrative approach may more effectively model neurobiological components as functional modules of pathophysiology embedded within the complex, social dynamics that influence the phenomenology of mental disorders.
KW - Artificial intelligence
KW - Automated pattern recognition
KW - Bipolar disorder
KW - Machine learning
KW - Major depressive disorder
KW - Mood disorders
KW - Neural networks (computer)
KW - Treatment outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052219946&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.073
DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.073
M3 - 文献综述
C2 - 30153635
AN - SCOPUS:85052219946
SN - 0165-0327
VL - 241
SP - 519
EP - 532
JO - Journal of Affective Disorders
JF - Journal of Affective Disorders
ER -