Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134293›Full record

ReviewPsychopharmacology2021

Computational approaches and machine learning for individual-level treatment predictions.

Martin P Paulus, Wesley K Thompson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychopharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin P PaulusLaureate Institute for Brain Research, 6655 S Ave Tulsa, Yale, OK, 74136-3326, USA. mpaulus@laureateinstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0825-3606
Wesley K ThompsonFamily Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Laureate Institute for Brain Research · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041089 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Joanna Jacobus, Susan F. Tapert · 2015 to 2026
$31.7M
The Center for Neuroscience-based Mental Health Assessment and Prediction (NEUROMAP)P20GM121312 · NIGMS · LAUREATE INSTITUTE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH · PI ROBIN L AUPPERLE · 2017 to 2026
$23.7M
Latent Constructs: Negative-Positive Valence Domains in Anxiety and DepressionR01MH101453 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PAULUS, MARTIN P. · 2013 to 2016
$1.9M
Does amphetamine use impair brain systems in OEF/OIF veterans with PTSD?I01CX000273 · VA · VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM · PI TAPERT, SUSAN · 2011 to 2015
–
CSRD VA I01 CX000273NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA041089NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM121312NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe impact of neuroscience-based approaches for psychiatry on pragmatic clinical decision-making has been limited. Although neuroscience has provided insights into basic mechanisms of neural function, these insights have not improved the ability to generate better assessments, prognoses, diagnoses, or treatment of psychiatric conditions.

objectivesTo integrate the emerging findings in machine learning and computational psychiatry to address the question: what measures that are not derived from the patient's self-assessment or the assessment by a trained professional can be used to make more precise predictions about the individual's current state, the individual's future disease trajectory, or the probability to respond to a particular intervention?

resultsCurrently, the ability to use individual differences to predict differential outcomes is very modest possibly related to the fact that the effect sizes of interventions are small. There is emerging evidence of genetic and neuroimaging-based heterogeneity of psychiatric disorders, which contributes to imprecise predictions. Although the use of machine learning tools to generate clinically actionable predictions is still in its infancy, these approaches may identify subgroups enabling more precise predictions. In addition, computational psychiatry might provide explanatory disease models based on faulty updating of internal values or beliefs.

conclusionsThere is a need for larger studies, clinical trials using machine learning, or computational psychiatry model parameters predictions as actionable outcomes, comparing alternative explanatory computational models, and using translational approaches that apply similar paradigms and models in humans and animals.

Indexed as

Machine LearningHumansMental DisordersNeuroimagingNeurosciencesProbabilityPrognosisPsychiatryComputational psychiatryMachine learningModelsPredictionReinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID31134293
PMCPMC6879811
OpenAlexW2947696734

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.