Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30809667›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2020

Using Machine Learning and Structural Neuroimaging to Detect First Episode Psychosis: Reconsidering the Evidence.

Sandra Vieira, Qi-Yong Gong, Walter H L Pinaya, Cristina Scarpazza, Stefania Tognin, Benedicto Crespo-Facorro, Diana Tordesillas-Gutierrez, Victor Ortiz-García, Esther Setien-Suero, Floortje E Scheepers and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. External validation of a prognostic model to improve prediction of psychosis: a retrospective cohort study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Sandra VieiraDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Qi-Yong GongHuaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Walter H L PinayaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Cristina ScarpazzaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Stefania TogninDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Benedicto Crespo-FacorroCentro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Spain.
Diana Tordesillas-GutierrezCentro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Spain.
Victor Ortiz-GarcíaCentro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Spain.
Esther Setien-SueroCentro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Spain.
Floortje E ScheepersDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Neeltje E M Van HarenBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tiago R MarquesDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Robin M MurrayDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Anthony DavidDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Paola DazzanDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Andrea MechelliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBUniversidad de Cantabria · ESUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental · ESSichuan University · CNUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_11003MRF_ C0439Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208519/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the high level of interest in the use of machine learning (ML) and neuroimaging to detect psychosis at the individual level, the reliability of the findings is unclear due to potential methodological issues that may have inflated the existing literature. This study aimed to elucidate the extent to which the application of ML to neuroanatomical data allows detection of first episode psychosis (FEP), while putting in place methodological precautions to avoid overoptimistic results. We tested both traditional ML and an emerging approach known as deep learning (DL) using 3 feature sets of interest: (1) surface-based regional volumes and cortical thickness, (2) voxel-based gray matter volume (GMV) and (3) voxel-based cortical thickness (VBCT). To assess the reliability of the findings, we repeated all analyses in 5 independent datasets, totaling 956 participants (514 FEP and 444 within-site matched controls). The performance was assessed via nested cross-validation (CV) and cross-site CV. Accuracies ranged from 50% to 70% for surfaced-based features; from 50% to 63% for GMV; and from 51% to 68% for VBCT. The best accuracies (70%) were achieved when DL was applied to surface-based features; however, these models generalized poorly to other sites. Findings from this study suggest that, when methodological precautions are adopted to avoid overoptimistic results, detection of individuals in the early stages of psychosis is more challenging than originally thought. In light of this, we argue that the current evidence for the diagnostic value of ML and structural neuroimaging should be reconsidered toward a more cautious interpretation.

Indexed as

AdultCerebral CortexDatasets as TopicDeep LearningFemaleGray MatterHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningMaleNeuroimagingPattern Recognition, AutomatedPsychotic DisordersReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultmultivariate pattern recognition/classificationneuroimaging/multi-sitepsychosis

Identifiers

PMID30809667
PMCPMC6942152
OpenAlexW2915607787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.