ArticleJournal of affective disorders2016
Individualized identification of euthymic bipolar disorder using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) and machine learning.
Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurocognitive Graphs of First-Episode Schizophrenia and Major Depression Based on Cognitive Features.Neuroscience bulletin · 2018Trial
- Computer-Assisted Performance-Based Assessment for Mental Health: A Scoping Review.PsyCh journal · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Mental Health: Applications, Challenges, and the Clinician's Role.Current psychiatry reports · 2024Review
- A systematic review of the biomarkers associated with cognition and mood state in bipolar disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Mental Health Diagnoses: A Systematic Literature Review.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2024Review
- [Cross-sectoral therapeutic concepts and innovative technologies: new opportunities for the treatment of patients with mental disorders].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Review
- The Role of Machine Learning in Diagnosing Bipolar Disorder: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Care: Clinical Applications, Barriers, Facilitators, and Artificial Wisdom.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2021Review
- Longitudinal course of depressive symptom severity among youths with bipolar disorders: Moderating influences of sustained attention and history of child maltreatment.Journal of affective disorders · 2021Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Major Mental and Neurological Disorders and Suicide: A Biostatistical Perspective on Data Mining.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Changes in Loss Sensitivity During Treatment in Concurrent Disorders Inpatients: A Computational Model Approach to Assessing Risky Decision-Making.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Association of Chemokine (C-C Motif) Receptor 5 and Ligand 5 with Recovery from Major Depressive Disorder and Related Neurocognitive Impairment.Neuroimmunomodulation · 2020Observational
- Chinese College Students Have Higher Anxiety in New Semester of Online Learning During COVID-19: A Machine Learning Approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The use of component-wise gradient boosting to assess the possible role of cognitive measures as markers of vulnerability to pediatric bipolar disorder.Cognitive neuropsychiatry · 2019Article
- Increased reward-oriented impulsivity in older bipolar patients: A preliminary study.Journal of affective disorders · 2018Article
- Hippocampal subfield volumes in mood disorders.Molecular psychiatry · 2017Article
- Prediction of vulnerability to bipolar disorder using multivariate neurocognitive patterns: a pilot study.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have reported that patients with bipolar disorder (BD) present with cognitive impairments during mood episodes as well as euthymic phase. However, it is still unknown whether reported neurocognitive abnormalities can objectively identify individual BD patients from healthy controls (HC).
methodsA total of 21 euthymic BD patients and 21 demographically matched HC were included in the current study. Participants performed the computerized Cambridge Neurocognitive Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) to assess cognitive performance. The least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) machine learning algorithm was implemented to identify neurocognitive signatures to distinguish individual BD patients from HC.
resultsThe LASSO machine learning algorithm identified individual BD patients from HC with an accuracy of 71%, area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.7143 and significant at p=0.0053. The LASSO algorithm assigned individual subjects with a probability score (0-healthy, 1-patient). Patients with rapid cycling (RC) were assigned increased probability scores as compared to patients without RC. A multivariate pattern of neurocognitive abnormalities comprising of affective Go/No-go and the Cambridge gambling task was relevant in distinguishing individual patients from HC. LIMITATIONS: Our study sample was small as we only considered euthymic BD patients and demographically matched HC.
conclusionNeurocognitive abnormalities can distinguish individual euthymic BD patients from HC with relatively high accuracy. In addition, patients with RC had more cognitive impairments compared to patients without RC. The predictive neurocognitive signature identified in the current study can potentially be used to provide individualized clinical inferences on BD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.