| Literature DB >> 35884728 |
Xiang-Yun Yang1,2, Rui Liu1,2, Jia Luo1,2, Fang-Fang Huang1,2, Peng-Chong Wang1,2, Xiao-Jie Yang1,2, Hang Wu1,2, Yuan Zhou3,4, Zhan-Jiang Li1,2.
Abstract
Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), 40% of OCD patients show a poor response to CBT. This study aimed to identify the cortical structural factors that predict CBT outcomes in OCD patients. A total of 56 patients with OCD received baseline structural MRI (sMRI) scanning and 14 individual CBT sessions. The linear support vector regression (SVR) models were used to identify the predictive performance of sMRI indices, including gray matter volume, cortical thickness, sulcal depth, and gyrification value. The patients' OC symptoms decreased significantly after CBT intervention (p < 0.001). We found the model with the comprehensive variables exhibited better performance than the models with single structural indices (MAE = 0.14, MSE = 0.03, R2 = 0.36), showing a significant correlation between the true value and the predicted value (r = 0.63, p < 0.001). The results indicated that a model integrating four cortical structural features can accurately predict the effectiveness of CBT for OCD. Future models incorporating other brain indicators, including brain functional indicators, EEG indicators, neurotransmitters, etc., which might be more accurate for predicting the effectiveness of CBT for OCD, are needed.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive behavioral therapy; cortical structural feature; machine learning; obsessive-compulsive disorder; prediction; support vector regression
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884728 PMCID: PMC9322050 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
The overview of the 14 CBT sessions.
| Session | Main Technique | Week |
|---|---|---|
| The 1st–2nd session | Therapeutic alliance establishment, information collection and assessment, psychoeducation, and normalization. | The 1st week |
| The 3rd–6th session | Case conceptualization, identification of cognitive distortion, plan and implementation of behavioral experiments, and challenging and correction of the distorted cognitions, including on-site and homework exercises. | The 2nd–4th week |
| The 7th–12th session | Introduction of exposure, creation of an anxiety hierarchy and planning of exposure, and the conduct of ERP practice, including therapist-assisted and self-administered practice. | The 5th–10th week |
| The 13th–14th session | Treatment review to consolidate treatment effects and prevent relapse. | The 11th–12th week |
Participants were not allowed to receive any psychoactive medications during the course of the study.
Figure 1The extracted four cortical structure indices from the original MRI images based on different templates. (A) The template of AAL3; (B) the template of DK 40; (C) the raw MRI image of a subject; (D) the gray matter map of the subject with AAL3; (E) the cortical thickness of the subject with DK 40; (F) the gyrus of the subject with DK 40; (G) the sulcal depth of the subject with DK 40. (A,B) were shown by the Brainstorm; (C) was shown by MRIcron; and (D–G) were shown by the CAT12. Abbreviations: AAL3, automated anatomical labelling 3; DK 40, Desikan–Killiany atlas.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of OCD patients before and after CBT.
| Characteristics | Baseline | 12 Weeks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 28.02 ± 6.7 | -- | |
| Gender (male/female) | 37/19 | -- | |
| Education level | 15.5 ± 2.3 | -- | |
| Illness duration | 10.35 ± 7.5 | -- | |
| Y−BOCS score | |||
| Total | 23.43 ± 5.84 | 10.68± 6.86 | <0.001 |
| Obsession | 12.8 ± 4.6 | 5.3 ± 3.9 | <0.001 |
| Compulsion | 11.3 ± 4.1 | 5.4 ± 3.2 | <0.001 |
| HAMD−17 score | 6.29 ± 4.06 | 2.32 ± 2.83 | <0.001 |
| HAMA score | 8.09 ± 5.89 | 2.61 ± 3.33 | <0.001 |
Note: Data are expressed as mean ± SD, SD: standard deviation. OCD: obsessive–compulsive disorder. Y−BOCS: Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale. HAMD−17: the 17−item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. HAMA: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.
Regression performance for different structural feature representations.
| Selected Features | Brain Regions | MAE | MSE | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMV | Right superior frontal gyrus−medial | 0.18 | 0.05 | −0.02 |
| Cortical thickness | Left caudal middle frontal | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.12 |
| Gyrification value | Right fusiform | 0.18 | 0.05 | −0.03 |
| Sulcal depth | Left cuneus | 0.18 | 0.05 | −0.02 |
| Comprehensive variables | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.36 | |
| GMV | Left CER10 | |||
| Cortical thickness | Right entorhinal | |||
| Gyrification value | Right isthmus cingulate | |||
| Sulcal depth | Left superior frontal |
Note: MAE: Mean absolute error; MSE: Mean squared error; R2: Coefficient of determination; GMV: Gray matter volume; CER: Cerebellum; VTA: Ventral tegmental area.
Figure 2The distribution of the selected brain regions used in constructing the five prediction models. (A) the distribution of the gray matter volume; (B) the distribution of the cortical thickness; (C) the distribution of the gyrification; (D) the distribution of the sulcal depth; (E) the distribution of the comprehensive variables, including the left cerebellum 10, left VTA, and right VTA in the gray matter volume; right entorhinal is under the cortical thickness; right isthmus cingulate under the gyrification; Left superior frontal, fusiform, lateral occipital, parahippocampal, and rostral middle frontal regions are under the sulcal depth. Abbreviations: VTA, ventral tegmental area.
Figure 3The correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions of different features. (A) the correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions with gray matter volume values; (B) the correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions with thickness values; (C) the correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions with gyrification values; (D) the correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions with sulcal depth values; (E) the correlations between true values and predicted values in the regressions with comprehensive values.
Figure 4The correlation between the reduction rate of Y−BOCS score and comprehensive variables. (A–C) the correlation between the reduction rate of Y−BOCS score and gray matter volumes in left cerebellum 10, left VTA, and right VTA; (D) the correlation between the reduction rate of Y−BOCS score and thickness in right entorhinal; (E) the correlation between the reduction rate of Y−BOCS score and gyrus value in right isthmus cingulate; (F–J) the correlation between the reduction rate of Y−BOCS score and depth value in left superior frontal, fusiform, lateral occipital, parahippocampal, and rostral middle frontal regions.