Martin P Paulus1, Wesley K Thompson2. 1. Laureate Institute for Brain Research, 6655 S Ave Tulsa, Yale, OK, 74136-3326, USA. mpaulus@laureateinstitute.org. 2. Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The impact of neuroscience-based approaches for psychiatry on pragmatic clinical decision-making has been limited. Although neuroscience has provided insights into basic mechanisms of neural function, these insights have not improved the ability to generate better assessments, prognoses, diagnoses, or treatment of psychiatric conditions. OBJECTIVES: To integrate the emerging findings in machine learning and computational psychiatry to address the question: what measures that are not derived from the patient's self-assessment or the assessment by a trained professional can be used to make more precise predictions about the individual's current state, the individual's future disease trajectory, or the probability to respond to a particular intervention? RESULTS: Currently, the ability to use individual differences to predict differential outcomes is very modest possibly related to the fact that the effect sizes of interventions are small. There is emerging evidence of genetic and neuroimaging-based heterogeneity of psychiatric disorders, which contributes to imprecise predictions. Although the use of machine learning tools to generate clinically actionable predictions is still in its infancy, these approaches may identify subgroups enabling more precise predictions. In addition, computational psychiatry might provide explanatory disease models based on faulty updating of internal values or beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for larger studies, clinical trials using machine learning, or computational psychiatry model parameters predictions as actionable outcomes, comparing alternative explanatory computational models, and using translational approaches that apply similar paradigms and models in humans and animals.
RATIONALE: The impact of neuroscience-based approaches for psychiatry on pragmatic clinical decision-making has been limited. Although neuroscience has provided insights into basic mechanisms of neural function, these insights have not improved the ability to generate better assessments, prognoses, diagnoses, or treatment of psychiatric conditions. OBJECTIVES: To integrate the emerging findings in machine learning and computational psychiatry to address the question: what measures that are not derived from the patient's self-assessment or the assessment by a trained professional can be used to make more precise predictions about the individual's current state, the individual's future disease trajectory, or the probability to respond to a particular intervention? RESULTS: Currently, the ability to use individual differences to predict differential outcomes is very modest possibly related to the fact that the effect sizes of interventions are small. There is emerging evidence of genetic and neuroimaging-based heterogeneity of psychiatric disorders, which contributes to imprecise predictions. Although the use of machine learning tools to generate clinically actionable predictions is still in its infancy, these approaches may identify subgroups enabling more precise predictions. In addition, computational psychiatry might provide explanatory disease models based on faulty updating of internal values or beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for larger studies, clinical trials using machine learning, or computational psychiatry model parameters predictions as actionable outcomes, comparing alternative explanatory computational models, and using translational approaches that apply similar paradigms and models in humans and animals.
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Andre Pascal Kengne; Diederick E Grobbee; Patrick Royston; Yvonne Vergouwe; Douglas G Altman; Mark Woodward Journal: Heart Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Thomas Wolfers; Nhat Trung Doan; Tobias Kaufmann; Dag Alnæs; Torgeir Moberget; Ingrid Agartz; Jan K Buitelaar; Torill Ueland; Ingrid Melle; Barbara Franke; Ole A Andreassen; Christian F Beckmann; Lars T Westlye; Andre F Marquand Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Sarah E Morris; Charles A Sanislow; Jenni Pacheco; Uma Vaidyanathan; Joshua A Gordon; Bruce N Cuthbert Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 11.150