Literature DB >> 26592808

Group-regularized individual prediction: theory and application to pain.

Martin A Lindquist1, Anjali Krishnan2, Marina López-Solà3, Marieke Jepma3, Choong-Wan Woo3, Leonie Koban3, Mathieu Roy4, Lauren Y Atlas5, Liane Schmidt6, Luke J Chang3, Elizabeth A Reynolds Losin7, Hedwig Eisenbarth3, Yoni K Ashar3, Elizabeth Delk3, Tor D Wager8.   

Abstract

Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) has become an important tool for identifying brain representations of psychological processes and clinical outcomes using fMRI and related methods. Such methods can be used to predict or 'decode' psychological states in individual subjects. Single-subject MVPA approaches, however, are limited by the amount and quality of individual-subject data. In spite of higher spatial resolution, predictive accuracy from single-subject data often does not exceed what can be accomplished using coarser, group-level maps, because single-subject patterns are trained on limited amounts of often-noisy data. Here, we present a method that combines population-level priors, in the form of biomarker patterns developed on prior samples, with single-subject MVPA maps to improve single-subject prediction. Theoretical results and simulations motivate a weighting based on the relative variances of biomarker-based prediction-based on population-level predictive maps from prior groups-and individual-subject, cross-validated prediction. Empirical results predicting pain using brain activity on a trial-by-trial basis (single-trial prediction) across 6 studies (N=180 participants) confirm the theoretical predictions. Regularization based on a population-level biomarker-in this case, the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS)-improved single-subject prediction accuracy compared with idiographic maps based on the individuals' data alone. The regularization scheme that we propose, which we term group-regularized individual prediction (GRIP), can be applied broadly to within-person MVPA-based prediction. We also show how GRIP can be used to evaluate data quality and provide benchmarks for the appropriateness of population-level maps like the NPS for a given individual or study.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Bayes; MVPA; Machine learning; Mega-analysis; Meta-analysis; Pain; Prediction; Shrinkage; Statistical learning; fMRI

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26592808      PMCID: PMC5071107          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  57 in total

Review 1.  What does fMRI tell us about neuronal activity?

Authors:  David J Heeger; David Ress
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Correlations and Multiple Comparisons in Functional Imaging: A Statistical Perspective (Commentary on Vul et al., 2009).

Authors:  Martin A Lindquist; Andrew Gelman
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-05

3.  Measuring functional connectivity during distinct stages of a cognitive task.

Authors:  Jesse Rissman; Adam Gazzaley; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 4.  Measuring neural representations with fMRI: practices and pitfalls.

Authors:  Tyler Davis; Russell A Poldrack
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 5.691

5.  Quantitative prediction of subjective pain intensity from whole-brain fMRI data using Gaussian processes.

Authors:  Andre Marquand; Matthew Howard; Michael Brammer; Carlton Chu; Steven Coen; Janaina Mourão-Miranda
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex.

Authors:  J V Haxby; M I Gobbini; M L Furey; A Ishai; J L Schouten; P Pietrini
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-09-28       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Brain mediators of predictive cue effects on perceived pain.

Authors:  Lauren Y Atlas; Niall Bolger; Martin A Lindquist; Tor D Wager
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Greater neural pattern similarity across repetitions is associated with better memory.

Authors:  Gui Xue; Qi Dong; Chuansheng Chen; Zhonglin Lu; Jeanette A Mumford; Russell A Poldrack
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Identifying natural images from human brain activity.

Authors:  Kendrick N Kay; Thomas Naselaris; Ryan J Prenger; Jack L Gallant
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Neuropsychosocial profiles of current and future adolescent alcohol misusers.

Authors:  Robert Whelan; Richard Watts; Catherine A Orr; Robert R Althoff; Eric Artiges; Tobias Banaschewski; Gareth J Barker; Arun L W Bokde; Christian Büchel; Fabiana M Carvalho; Patricia J Conrod; Herta Flor; Mira Fauth-Bühler; Vincent Frouin; Juergen Gallinat; Gabriela Gan; Penny Gowland; Andreas Heinz; Bernd Ittermann; Claire Lawrence; Karl Mann; Jean-Luc Martinot; Frauke Nees; Nick Ortiz; Marie-Laure Paillère-Martinot; Tomas Paus; Zdenka Pausova; Marcella Rietschel; Trevor W Robbins; Michael N Smolka; Andreas Ströhle; Gunter Schumann; Hugh Garavan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  25 in total

1.  Behavioural and neural evidence for self-reinforcing expectancy effects on pain.

Authors:  Marieke Jepma; Leonie Koban; Johnny van Doorn; Matt Jones; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2018-10-29

2.  Empathic Care and Distress: Predictive Brain Markers and Dissociable Brain Systems.

Authors:  Yoni K Ashar; Jessica R Andrews-Hanna; Sona Dimidjian; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Analgesic Effects Evoked by Real and Imagined Acupuncture: A Neuroimaging Study.

Authors:  Jin Cao; Yiheng Tu; Scott P Orr; Courtney Lang; Joel Park; Mark Vangel; Lucy Chen; Randy Gollub; Jian Kong
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 5.357

4.  Mesocorticolimbic Pathways Encode Cue-Based Expectancy Effects on Pain.

Authors:  Yiheng Tu; Yanzhi Bi; Libo Zhang; Hua Wei; Li Hu
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Pain-Evoked Reorganization in Functional Brain Networks.

Authors:  Weihao Zheng; Choong-Wan Woo; Zhijun Yao; Pavel Goldstein; Lauren Y Atlas; Mathieu Roy; Liane Schmidt; Anjali Krishnan; Marieke Jepma; Bin Hu; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 6.  Modeling Pain Using fMRI: From Regions to Biomarkers.

Authors:  Marianne C Reddan; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neurosci Bull       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 5.203

7.  Temporal Grading Index of Functional Network Topology Predicts Pain Perception of Patients With Chronic Back Pain.

Authors:  Zhonghua Li; Leilei Zhao; Jing Ji; Ben Ma; Zhiyong Zhao; Miao Wu; Weihao Zheng; Zhe Zhang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.086

Review 8.  Representation, Pattern Information, and Brain Signatures: From Neurons to Neuroimaging.

Authors:  Philip A Kragel; Leonie Koban; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  Effect sizes and test-retest reliability of the fMRI-based neurologic pain signature.

Authors:  Xiaochun Han; Yoni K Ashar; Philip Kragel; Bogdan Petre; Victoria Schelkun; Lauren Y Atlas; Luke J Chang; Marieke Jepma; Leonie Koban; Elizabeth A Reynolds Losin; Mathieu Roy; Choong-Wan Woo; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Abnormal medial prefrontal cortex functional connectivity and its association with clinical symptoms in chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Yiheng Tu; Minyoung Jung; Randy L Gollub; Vitaly Napadow; Jessica Gerber; Ana Ortiz; Courtney Lang; Ishtiaq Mawla; Wei Shen; Suk-Tak Chan; Ajay D Wasan; Robert R Edwards; Ted J Kaptchuk; Bruce Rosen; Jian Kong
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 7.926

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.