Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30665102›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2019

Using neuroimaging to predict relapse in stimulant dependence: A comparison of linear and machine learning models.

Joshua L Gowin, Monique Ernst, Tali Ball, April C May, Matthew E Sloan, Susan F Tapert, Martin P Paulus

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Post-traumatic stress comorbidity in substance use disorder: machine learning analyses of phenotypic drivers.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua L GowinDepartments of Radiology and Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States. Electronic address: joshua.gowin@ucdenver.edu.
Monique ErnstSection on Neurobiology of Fear and Anxiety, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Tali BallDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
April C MayDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Matthew E SloanDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Susan F TapertDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Martin P PaulusDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States; Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, United States.
University of California San Diego · USNational Institute of Mental Health · USStanford University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USYale University · US

Funding

Alcohol Research in the Science/Practitioner ModelT32AA013525 · NIAAA · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI EDWARD P RILEY, ANDREA SPADONI TOWNSEND · 2002 to 2026
$8.4M
NEUROBIOLOGY OF TRANSITION TO STIMULANT DEPENDENCER01DA016663 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAULUS, MARTIN P. · 2004 to 2010
$2.8M
Negative reinforcement and interoceptive dysfunction in stimulant dependence.R01DA027797 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAULUS, MARTIN P. · 2009 to 2013
$1.7M
STIMULANT DEPENDENCE: NEURAL MECHANISMS OF RELAPSER01DA018307 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAULUS, MARTIN P. · 2004 to 2008
$1.3M
Neural Correlates of Emotion Regulation in Youth at Risk for AlcoholismR00AA024778 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GOWIN, JOSHUA LEIGH · 2018 to 2020
$747k
Developing a mechanistic neurobiological model of exposure therapy response based on fear extinction theoryK23MH113708 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BALL, TALI MANBER · 2018 to 2021
$746k
A Prospective Investigation of Youth Alcohol Experimentation and Reward ResponsivityF31AA027169 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI MAY, APRIL CHELSEA · 2018 to 2020
$114k
NIAAA NIH HHS F31 AA027169NIAAA NIH HHS R00 AA024778NIAAA NIH HHS T32 AA013525NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA016663NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA018307NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA027797NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH113708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRelapse rates are consistently high for stimulant user disorders. In order to obtain prognostic information about individuals in treatment, machine learning models have been applied to neuroimaging and clinical data. Yet few efforts have been made to test these models in independent samples or show that they can outperform linear models. In this exploratory study, we examine whether machine learning models relative to linear models provide greater predictive accuracy and less overfitting.

methodThis longitudinal study included 63 methamphetamine-dependent (training sample) and 29 cocaine-dependent (test sample) individuals who completed an MRI scan during residential treatment. Linear and machine learning models predicting relapse at a one-year follow up that were previously developed in the methamphetamine-dependent sample using neuroimaging and clinical variables were applied to the cocaine-dependent sample. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to assess performance using area under the curve (AUC) as the primary outcome.

resultsTwelve individuals in the cocaine-dependent sample remained abstinent, and 17 relapsed. The linear models produced more accurate prediction in the training sample than the machine learning models but showed reduced performance in the testing sample, with AUC decreasing by 0.18. The machine learning models produced similar predictive performance in the training and test samples, with AUC changing by 0.03. In the test sample, neither the linear nor the machine learning model predicted relapse at rates above chance.

conclusionsAlthough machine learning algorithms may have advantages, in this study neither model's performance was sufficient to be clinically useful. In order to improve predictive models, stronger predictor variables and larger samples are needed.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeuroimagingROC CurveAdultFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLongitudinal StudiesMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMethamphetamineRecurrenceMethamphetamine

Identifiers

PMID30665102
PMCPMC6350259
OpenAlexW2909469319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.