Search

Background: Recent advances in data-driven computational approaches have been helpful in devising tools to objectively diagnose psychiatric disorders. However, current machine learning studies limited to small homogeneous samples, different methodologies, and different imaging collection protocols, limit the ability to directly compare and generalize their results. Here we aimed to classify individuals with PTSD versus controls and assess the generalizability using a large heterogeneous brain datasets from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD Working group. Methods: We analyzed brain MRI data from 3,477 structural-MRI; 2,495 resting state-fMRI; and 1,952 diffusion-MRI. First, we identified the brain features that best distinguish individuals with PTSD from controls using traditional machine learning methods. Second, we assessed the utility of the denoising variational autoencoder (DVAE) and evaluated its classification performance. Third, we assessed the generalizability and reproducibility of both models using leave-one-site-out cross-validation procedure for each modality. Results: We found lower performance in classifying PTSD vs. controls with data from over 20 sites (60 % test AUC for s-MRI, 59 % for rs-fMRI and 56 % for d-MRI), as compared to other studies run on single-site data. The performance increased when classifying PTSD from HC without trauma history in each modality (75 % AUC). The classification performance remained intact when applying the DVAE framework, which reduced the number of features. Finally, we found that the DVAE framework achieved better generalization to unseen datasets compared with the traditional machine learning frameworks, albeit performance was slightly above chance. Conclusion: These results have the potential to provide a baseline classification performance for PTSD when using large scale neuroimaging datasets. Our findings show that the control group used can heavily affect classification performance. The DVAE framework provided better generalizability for the multi-site data. This may be more significant in clinical practice since the neuroimaging-based diagnostic DVAE classification models are much less site-specific, rendering them more generalizable.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by cognitive decline and atrophy in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and subsequent brain regions. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) has been widely used in research and clinical care for diagnosis and monitoring AD progression. However, atrophy patterns are complex and vary by patient. To address this issue, researchers have made efforts to develop more concise metrics that can summarize AD-specific atrophy. Many of these methods can be difficult to interpret clinically, hampering adoption.In this study, we introduce a novel index which we call an “AD-NeuroScore,” that uses a modified Euclidean-inspired distance function to calculate differences between regional brain volumes associated with cognitive decline. The index is adjusted for intracranial volume (ICV), age, sex, and scanner model. We validated AD-NeuroScore using 929 older adults from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study, with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD = 6.3; 55.1–91.5) and cognitively normal (CN), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or AD diagnoses.Our validation results showed that AD-NeuroScore was significantly associated with diagnosis and disease severity scores (measured by MMSE, CDR-SB, and ADAS-11) at baseline. Furthermore, baseline AD-NeuroScore was associated with both changes in diagnosis and disease severity scores at all time points with available data. The performance of AD-NeuroScore was equivalent or superior to adjusted hippocampal volume (AHV), a widely used metric in AD research. Further, AD-NeuroScore typically performed as well as or sometimes better when compared to other existing sMRI-based metrics.In conclusion, we have introduced a new metric, AD-NeuroScore, which shows promising results in detecting AD, benchmarking disease severity, and predicting disease progression. AD-NeuroScore differentiates itself from other metrics by being clinically practical and interpretable.

Results of neuroimaging datasets aggregated from multiple sites may be biased by site-specific profiles in participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as MRI acquisition protocols and scanning platforms. We compared the impact of four different harmonization methods on results obtained from analyses of cortical thickness data: (1) linear mixed-effects model (LME) that models site-specific random intercepts (LMEINT), (2) LME that models both site-specific random intercepts and age-related random slopes (LMEINT+SLP), (3) ComBat, and (4) ComBat with a generalized additive model (ComBat-GAM). Our test case for comparing harmonization methods was cortical thickness data aggregated from 29 sites, which included 1,340 cases with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (6.2–81.8 years old) and 2,057 trauma-exposed controls without PTSD (6.3–85.2 years old). We found that, compared to the other data harmonization methods, data processed with ComBat-GAM was more sensitive to the detection of significant case-control differences (Χ2(3) = 63.704, p < 0.001) as well as case-control differences in age-related cortical thinning (Χ2(3) = 12.082, p = 0.007). Both ComBat and ComBat-GAM outperformed LME methods in detecting sex differences (Χ2(3) = 9.114, p = 0.028) in regional cortical thickness. ComBat-GAM also led to stronger estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of case-related cortical thickness reduction (corrected p-values < 0.001), weaker estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females than males (corrected p-values < 0.001), and stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females relative to males in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001). Our results support the use of ComBat-GAM to minimize confounds and increase statistical power when harmonizing data with non-linear effects, and the use of either ComBat or ComBat-GAM for harmonizing data with linear effects.

Neurological and psychiatric illnesses are associated with regional brain deficit patterns that bear unique signatures and capture illness-specific characteristics. The Regional Vulnerability Index (RVI) was developed to quantify brain similarity by comparing individual white matter microstructure, cortical gray matter thickness and subcortical gray matter structural volume measures with neuroanatomical deficit patterns derived from large-scale meta-analytic studies. We tested the specificity of the RVI approach for major depressive disorder (MDD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a large epidemiological sample of UK Biobank (UKBB) participants (N = 19,393; 9138 M/10,255F; age = 64.8 ± 7.4 years). Compared to controls free of neuropsychiatric disorders, participants with MDD (N = 2,248; 805 M/1443F; age = 63.4 ± 7.4) had significantly higher RVI-MDD values (t = 5.6, p = 1·10−8), but showed no detectable difference in RVI-AD (t = 2.0, p = 0.10). Subjects with dementia (N = 7; 4 M/3F; age = 68.6 ± 8.6 years) showed significant elevation in RVI-AD (t = 4.2, p = 3·10−5) but not RVI-MDD (t = 2.1, p = 0.10) compared to controls. Even within affective illnesses, participants with bipolar disorder (N = 54) and anxiety disorder (N = 773) showed no significant elevation in whole-brain RVI-MDD. Participants with Parkinson’s disease (N = 37) showed elevation in RVI-AD (t = 2.4, p = 0.01) while subjects with stroke (N = 247) showed no such elevation (t = 1.1, p = 0.3). In summary, we demonstrated elevation in RVI-MDD and RVI-AD measures in the respective illnesses with strong replicability that is relatively specific to the respective diagnoses. These neuroanatomic deviation patterns offer a useful biomarker for population-wide assessments of similarity to neuropsychiatric illnesses.

Artificial intelligence has recently gained popularity across different medical fields to aid in the detection of diseases based on pathology samples or medical imaging findings. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a key assessment tool for patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). The role of machine learning and artificial intelligence to increase detection of brain abnormalities in TLE remains inconclusive. We used support vector machine (SV) and deep learning (DL) models based on region of interest (ROI-based) structural (n = 336) and diffusion (n = 863) brain MRI data from patients with TLE with (“lesional”) and without (“non-lesional”) radiographic features suggestive of underlying hippocampal sclerosis from the multinational (multi-center) ENIGMA-Epilepsy consortium. Our data showed that models to identify TLE performed better or similar (68–75%) compared to models to lateralize the side of TLE (56–73%, except structural-based) based on diffusion data with the opposite pattern seen for structural data (67–75% to diagnose vs. 83% to lateralize). In other aspects, structural and diffusion-based models showed similar classification accuracies. Our classification models for patients with hippocampal sclerosis were more accurate (68–76%) than models that stratified non-lesional patients (53–62%). Overall, SV and DL models performed similarly with several instances in which SV mildly outperformed DL. We discuss the relative performance of these models with ROI-level data and the implications for future applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence in epilepsy care.