Meenal J Patel1, Carmen Andreescu2, Julie C Price3, Kathryn L Edelman2, Charles F Reynolds2,4,5, Howard J Aizenstein1,2. 1. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently, depression diagnosis relies primarily on behavioral symptoms and signs, and treatment is guided by trial and error instead of evaluating associated underlying brain characteristics. Unlike past studies, we attempted to estimate accurate prediction models for late-life depression diagnosis and treatment response using multiple machine learning methods with inputs of multi-modal imaging and non-imaging whole brain and network-based features. METHODS: Late-life depression patients (medicated post-recruitment) (n = 33) and older non-depressed individuals (n = 35) were recruited. Their demographics and cognitive ability scores were recorded, and brain characteristics were acquired using multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging pretreatment. Linear and nonlinear learning methods were tested for estimating accurate prediction models. RESULTS: A learning method called alternating decision trees estimated the most accurate prediction models for late-life depression diagnosis (87.27% accuracy) and treatment response (89.47% accuracy). The diagnosis model included measures of age, Mini-mental state examination score, and structural imaging (e.g. whole brain atrophy and global white mater hyperintensity burden). The treatment response model included measures of structural and functional connectivity. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of multi-modal imaging and/or non-imaging measures may help better predict late-life depression diagnosis and treatment response. As a preliminary observation, we speculate that the results may also suggest that different underlying brain characteristics defined by multi-modal imaging measures-rather than region-based differences-are associated with depression versus depression recovery because to our knowledge this is the first depression study to accurately predict both using the same approach. These findings may help better understand late-life depression and identify preliminary steps toward personalized late-life depression treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Currently, depression diagnosis relies primarily on behavioral symptoms and signs, and treatment is guided by trial and error instead of evaluating associated underlying brain characteristics. Unlike past studies, we attempted to estimate accurate prediction models for late-life depression diagnosis and treatment response using multiple machine learning methods with inputs of multi-modal imaging and non-imaging whole brain and network-based features. METHODS:Late-life depressionpatients (medicated post-recruitment) (n = 33) and older non-depressed individuals (n = 35) were recruited. Their demographics and cognitive ability scores were recorded, and brain characteristics were acquired using multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging pretreatment. Linear and nonlinear learning methods were tested for estimating accurate prediction models. RESULTS: A learning method called alternating decision trees estimated the most accurate prediction models for late-life depression diagnosis (87.27% accuracy) and treatment response (89.47% accuracy). The diagnosis model included measures of age, Mini-mental state examination score, and structural imaging (e.g. whole brain atrophy and global white mater hyperintensity burden). The treatment response model included measures of structural and functional connectivity. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of multi-modal imaging and/or non-imaging measures may help better predict late-life depression diagnosis and treatment response. As a preliminary observation, we speculate that the results may also suggest that different underlying brain characteristics defined by multi-modal imaging measures-rather than region-based differences-are associated with depression versus depression recovery because to our knowledge this is the first depression study to accurately predict both using the same approach. These findings may help better understand late-life depression and identify preliminary steps toward personalized late-life depression treatment.
Authors: Faith M Gunning-Dixon; Michael Walton; Janice Cheng; Jessica Acuna; Sibel Klimstra; Molly E Zimmerman; Adam M Brickman; Matthew J Hoptman; Robert C Young; George S Alexopoulos Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Howard J Aizenstein; Alexander Khalaf; Sarah E Walker; Carmen Andreescu Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Minjie Wu; Carmen Andreescu; Meryl A Butters; Robert Tamburo; Charles F Reynolds; Howard Aizenstein Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Sean J Colloby; Michael J Firbank; Jiabao He; Alan J Thomas; Akshya Vasudev; Steve W Parry; John T O'Brien Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Tim Hahn; Andre F Marquand; Ann-Christine Ehlis; Thomas Dresler; Sarah Kittel-Schneider; Tomasz A Jarczok; Klaus-Peter Lesch; Peter M Jakob; Janaina Mourao-Miranda; Michael J Brammer; Andreas J Fallgatter Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-12-06
Authors: Howard J Aizenstein; Carmen Andreescu; Kathryn L Edelman; Jennifer L Cochran; Julie Price; Meryl A Butters; Jordan Karp; Meenal Patel; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Faith M Gunning; Janice Cheng; Christopher F Murphy; Dora Kanellopoulos; Jessica Acuna; Matthew J Hoptman; Sibel Klimstra; Shizuko Morimoto; James Weinberg; George S Alexopoulos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sarah Graham; Colin Depp; Ellen E Lee; Camille Nebeker; Xin Tu; Ho-Cheol Kim; Dilip V Jeste Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Jie Yang; Mengru Zhang; Hongshik Ahn; Qing Zhang; Tony B Jin; Ien Li; Matthew Nemesure; Nandita Joshi; Haoran Jiang; Jeffrey M Miller; Robert Todd Ogden; Eva Petkova; Matthew S Milak; Mary Elizabeth Sublette; Gregory M Sullivan; Madhukar H Trivedi; Myrna Weissman; Patrick J McGrath; Maurizio Fava; Benji T Kurian; Diego A Pizzagalli; Crystal M Cooper; Melvin McInnis; Maria A Oquendo; Joseph John Mann; Ramin V Parsey; Christine DeLorenzo Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Harris A Eyre; Hongyu Yang; Amber M Leaver; Kathleen Van Dyk; Prabha Siddarth; Natalie St Cyr; Katherine Narr; Linda Ercoli; Bernhard T Baune; Helen Lavretsky Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Lindsay M Squeglia; Tali M Ball; Joanna Jacobus; Ty Brumback; Benjamin S McKenna; Tam T Nguyen-Louie; Scott F Sorg; Martin P Paulus; Susan F Tapert Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Karen L Fortuna; John Torous; Colin A Depp; Daniel E Jimenez; Patricia A Areán; Robert Walker; Olu Ajilore; Carly M Goldstein; Theodore D Cosco; Jessica M Brooks; Ipsit V Vahia; Stephen J Bartels Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.105