TY - JOUR
T1 - Searching for Imaging Biomarkers of Psychotic Dysconnectivity
AU - Rodrigue, Amanda L.
AU - Mastrovito, Dana
AU - Esteban, Oscar
AU - Durnez, Joke
AU - Koenis, Marinka M.G.
AU - Janssen, Ronald
AU - Alexander-Bloch, Aaron
AU - Knowles, Emma M.
AU - Mathias, Samuel R.
AU - Mollon, Josephine
AU - Pearlson, Godfrey D.
AU - Frangou, Sophia
AU - Blangero, John
AU - Poldrack, Russell A.
AU - Glahn, David C.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health . BSNIP-1 and BSNIP-2 Hartford site: Grant No. MH077945 (to GDP), BSNIP-1 Baltimore site: Grant No. MH077852, Olin sample: Grant No. MH106324 (to DCG, JB), ISMMS sample: Grant No. MH113619 (to SF).
Funding Information:
This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health. BSNIP-1 and BSNIP-2 Hartford site: Grant No. MH077945 (to GDP), BSNIP-1 Baltimore site: Grant No. MH077852, Olin sample: Grant No. MH106324 (to DCG, JB), ISMMS sample: Grant No. MH113619 (to SF). Portions of this manuscript were presented at the annual meetings of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (December 9?13, 2018, Hollywood, FL) and the Society of Biological Psychiatry (May 16?18, 2019, Chicago, IL). The authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Society of Biological Psychiatry
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: Progress in precision psychiatry is predicated on identifying reliable individual-level diagnostic biomarkers. For psychosis, measures of structural and functional connectivity could be promising biomarkers given consistent reports of dysconnectivity across psychotic disorders using magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: We leveraged data from four independent cohorts of patients with psychosis and control subjects with observations from approximately 800 individuals. We used group-level analyses and two supervised machine learning algorithms (support vector machines and ridge regression) to test within-, between-, and across-sample classification performance of white matter and resting-state connectivity metrics. Results: Although we replicated group-level differences in brain connectivity, individual-level classification was suboptimal. Classification performance within samples was variable across folds (highest area under the curve [AUC] range = 0.30) and across datasets (average support vector machine AUC range = 0.50; average ridge regression AUC range = 0.18). Classification performance between samples was similarly variable or resulted in AUC values of approximately 0.65, indicating a lack of model generalizability. Furthermore, collapsing across samples (resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging, N = 888; diffusion tensor imaging, N = 860) did not improve model performance (maximal AUC = 0.67). Ridge regression models generally outperformed support vector machine models, although classification performance was still suboptimal in terms of clinical relevance. Adjusting for demographic covariates did not greatly affect results. Conclusions: Connectivity measures were not suitable as diagnostic biomarkers for psychosis as assessed in this study. Our results do not negate that other approaches may be more successful, although it is clear that a systematic approach to individual-level classification with large independent validation samples is necessary to properly vet neuroimaging features as diagnostic biomarkers.
AB - Background: Progress in precision psychiatry is predicated on identifying reliable individual-level diagnostic biomarkers. For psychosis, measures of structural and functional connectivity could be promising biomarkers given consistent reports of dysconnectivity across psychotic disorders using magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: We leveraged data from four independent cohorts of patients with psychosis and control subjects with observations from approximately 800 individuals. We used group-level analyses and two supervised machine learning algorithms (support vector machines and ridge regression) to test within-, between-, and across-sample classification performance of white matter and resting-state connectivity metrics. Results: Although we replicated group-level differences in brain connectivity, individual-level classification was suboptimal. Classification performance within samples was variable across folds (highest area under the curve [AUC] range = 0.30) and across datasets (average support vector machine AUC range = 0.50; average ridge regression AUC range = 0.18). Classification performance between samples was similarly variable or resulted in AUC values of approximately 0.65, indicating a lack of model generalizability. Furthermore, collapsing across samples (resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging, N = 888; diffusion tensor imaging, N = 860) did not improve model performance (maximal AUC = 0.67). Ridge regression models generally outperformed support vector machine models, although classification performance was still suboptimal in terms of clinical relevance. Adjusting for demographic covariates did not greatly affect results. Conclusions: Connectivity measures were not suitable as diagnostic biomarkers for psychosis as assessed in this study. Our results do not negate that other approaches may be more successful, although it is clear that a systematic approach to individual-level classification with large independent validation samples is necessary to properly vet neuroimaging features as diagnostic biomarkers.
KW - Biomarkers
KW - Connectivity
KW - MRI
KW - Machine learning
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Psychosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101067939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.12.002
DO - 10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.12.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 33622655
AN - SCOPUS:85101067939
SN - 2451-9022
VL - 6
SP - 1135
EP - 1144
JO - Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
JF - Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
IS - 12
ER -