Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32591634›Full record

SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2021

Machine learning for genetic prediction of psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.

Matthew Bracher-Smith, Karen Crawford, Valentina Escott-Price

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Sex-dependent prediction of autism.Frontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 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

3 authors.

Matthew Bracher-SmithMRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0531-6309
Karen CrawfordMRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Valentina Escott-PriceMRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. escottpricev@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-5483

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801418Medical Research Council MR/L010305/1Medical Research Council MR/L023784/2Medical Research Council MR/P005748/1Medical Research Council MR/T04604X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning methods have been employed to make predictions in psychiatry from genotypes, with the potential to bring improved prediction of outcomes in psychiatric genetics; however, their current performance is unclear. We aim to systematically review machine learning methods for predicting psychiatric disorders from genetics alone and evaluate their discrimination, bias and implementation. Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for terms relating to genetics, psychiatric disorders and machine learning, including neural networks, random forests, support vector machines and boosting, on 10 September 2019. Following PRISMA guidelines, articles were screened for inclusion independently by two authors, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias. Overall, 63 full texts were assessed from a pool of 652 abstracts. Data were extracted for 77 models of schizophrenia, bipolar, autism or anorexia across 13 studies. Performance of machine learning methods was highly varied (0.48-0.95 AUC) and differed between schizophrenia (0.54-0.95 AUC), bipolar (0.48-0.65 AUC), autism (0.52-0.81 AUC) and anorexia (0.62-0.69 AUC). This is likely due to the high risk of bias identified in the study designs and analysis for reported results. Choices for predictor selection, hyperparameter search and validation methodology, and viewing of the test set during training were common causes of high risk of bias in analysis. Key steps in model development and validation were frequently not performed or unreported. Comparison of discrimination across studies was constrained by heterogeneity of predictors, outcome and measurement, in addition to sample overlap within and across studies. Given widespread high risk of bias and the small number of studies identified, it is important to ensure established analysis methods are adopted. We emphasise best practices in methodology and reporting for improving future studies.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBiasHumansMental DisordersPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID32591634
PMCPMC7610853

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.