Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25260752›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2014

Quantitative forecasting of PTSD from early trauma responses: a Machine Learning application.

Isaac R Galatzer-Levy, Karen-Inge Karstoft, Alexander Statnikov, Arieh Y Shalev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Isaac R Galatzer-LevyDepartment of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: Isaac.Galatzer-Levy@nyumc.org.
Karen-Inge KarstoftDepartment of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Alexander StatnikovCenter for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Arieh Y ShalevCenter for Traumatic Stress Studies, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Application of Cognitive, Emotional and Biological Dimensions - Resubmission - 1K01MH102415 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GALATZER-LEVY, ISAAC R · 2014 to 2017
$665k
Prevention of PTSD by Early TreatmentR34MH071651 · NIMH · HADASSAH-HEBREW UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CTR · PI SHALEV, ARIEH Y · 2005 to 2008
$620k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH102415NIMH NIH HHS MH071651NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH071651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is broad interest in predicting the clinical course of mental disorders from early, multimodal clinical and biological information. Current computational models, however, constitute a significant barrier to realizing this goal. The early identification of trauma survivors at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is plausible given the disorder's salient onset and the abundance of putative biological and clinical risk indicators. This work evaluates the ability of Machine Learning (ML) forecasting approaches to identify and integrate a panel of unique predictive characteristics and determine their accuracy in forecasting non-remitting PTSD from information collected within 10 days of a traumatic event. Data on event characteristics, emergency department observations, and early symptoms were collected in 957 trauma survivors, followed for fifteen months. An ML feature selection algorithm identified a set of predictors that rendered all others redundant. Support Vector Machines (SVMs) as well as other ML classification algorithms were used to evaluate the forecasting accuracy of i) ML selected features, ii) all available features without selection, and iii) Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) symptoms alone. SVM also compared the prediction of a) PTSD diagnostic status at 15 months to b) posterior probability of membership in an empirically derived non-remitting PTSD symptom trajectory. Results are expressed as mean Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUC). The feature selection algorithm identified 16 predictors, present in ≥ 95% cross-validation trials. The accuracy of predicting non-remitting PTSD from that set (AUC = .77) did not differ from predicting from all available information (AUC = .78). Predicting from ASD symptoms was not better then chance (AUC = .60). The prediction of PTSD status was less accurate than that of membership in a non-remitting trajectory (AUC = .71). ML methods may fill a critical gap in forecasting PTSD. The ability to identify and integrate unique risk indicators makes this a promising approach for developing algorithms that infer probabilistic risk of chronic posttraumatic stress psychopathology based on complex sources of biological, psychological, and social information.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsROC CurveStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticCourse and prognosisEarly predictionForecastingMachine LearningMarkov boundary feature selectionPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)Support Vector Machines

Identifiers

PMID25260752
PMCPMC4252741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.