Back to Search Start Over

Applications of machine learning algorithms to predict therapeutic outcomes in depression: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors :
Lee, Yena
Ragguett, Renee-Marie
Mansur, Rodrigo B.
Boutilier, Justin J.
Rosenblat, Joshua D.
Trevizol, Alisson
Brietzke, Elisa
Lin, Kangguang
Pan, Zihang
Subramaniapillai, Mehala
Chan, Timothy C.Y.
Fus, Dominika
Park, Caroline
Musial, Natalie
Zuckerman, Hannah
Chen, Vincent Chin-Hung
Ho, Roger
Rong, Carola
McIntyre, Roger S.
Source :
Journal of Affective Disorders. Dec2018, Vol. 241, p519-532. 14p.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

<bold>Background: </bold>No previous study has comprehensively reviewed the application of machine learning algorithms in mood disorders populations. Herein, we qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate previous studies of machine learning-devised models that predict therapeutic outcomes in mood disorders populations.<bold>Methods: </bold>We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed from inception to February 8, 2018 for relevant studies that included adults with bipolar or unipolar depression; assessed therapeutic outcomes with a pharmacological, neuromodulatory, or manual-based psychotherapeutic intervention for depression; applied a machine learning algorithm; and reported predictors of therapeutic response. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression analyses were conducted.<bold>Results: </bold>We identified 639 records: 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility; 26 studies (n=17,499) and 20 studies (n=6325) were included in qualitative and quantitative review, respectively. Classification algorithms were able to predict therapeutic outcomes with an overall accuracy of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] of [0.77, 0.87]). Pooled estimates of classification accuracy were significantly greater (p < 0.01) in models informed by multiple data types (e.g., composite of phenomenological patient features and neuroimaging or peripheral gene expression data; pooled proportion [95% CI] = 0.93[0.86, 0.97]) when compared to models with lower-dimension data types (pooledproportion=0.68[0.62,0.74]to0.85[0.81,0.88]).<bold>Limitations: </bold>Most studies were retrospective; differences in machine learning algorithms and their implementation (e.g., cross-validation, hyperparameter tuning); cannot infer importance of individual variables fed into learning algorithm.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Machine learning algorithms provide a powerful conceptual and analytic framework capable of integrating multiple data types and sources. An integrative approach may more effectively model neurobiological components as functional modules of pathophysiology embedded within the complex, social dynamics that influence the phenomenology of mental disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
01650327
Volume :
241
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
131628403
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.073