Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543752›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2021

Heterogeneity and Classification of Recent Onset Psychosis and Depression: A Multimodal Machine Learning Approach.

Paris Alexandros Lalousis, Stephen J Wood, Lianne Schmaal, Katharine Chisholm, Sian Lowri Griffiths, Renate L E P Reniers, Alessandro Bertolino, Stefan Borgwardt, Paolo Brambilla, Joseph Kambeitz and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

25 authors.

Paris Alexandros LalousisInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Stephen J WoodInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lianne SchmaalOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Katharine ChisholmInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sian Lowri GriffithsInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0031-7174
Renate L E P ReniersInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alessandro BertolinoDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Stefan BorgwardtDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Paolo BrambillaDepartment of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Joseph KambeitzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig Maxmilians University, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8988-3959
Rebekka LencerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Christos PantelisMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9565-0238
Stephan RuhrmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Raimo K R SalokangasDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Frauke Schultze-LutterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Carolina BoniventoIRCCS "E. Medea" Scientific Institute, San Vito al Tagliamento (Pn), Italy.
Dominic DwyerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig Maxmilians University, Munich, Germany.
Adele FerroDepartment of Neurosciences and Mental Health, IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Theresa HaidlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Marlene RosenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Andre SchmidtDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6055-8397
Eva MeisenzahlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Nikolaos KoutsoulerisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig Maxmilians University, Munich, Germany.
Rachel UpthegroveInstitute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
PRONIA Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic heterogeneity within and across psychotic and affective disorders challenges accurate treatment selection, particularly in the early stages. Delineation of shared and distinct illness features at the phenotypic and brain levels may inform the development of more precise differential diagnostic tools. We aimed to identify prototypes of depression and psychosis to investigate their heterogeneity, with common, comorbid transdiagnostic symptoms. Analyzing clinical/neurocognitive and grey matter volume (GMV) data from the PRONIA database, we generated prototypic models of recent-onset depression (ROD) vs. recent-onset psychosis (ROP) by training support-vector machines to separate patients with ROD from patients with ROP, who were selected for absent comorbid features (pure groups). Then, models were applied to patients with comorbidity, ie, ROP with depressive symptoms (ROP+D) and ROD participants with sub-threshold psychosis-like features (ROD+P), to measure their positions within the affective-psychotic continuum. All models were independently validated in a replication sample. Comorbid patients were positioned between pure groups, with ROP+D patients being more frequently classified as ROD compared to pure ROP patients (clinical/neurocognitive model: χ2 = 14.874; P < .001; GMV model: χ2 = 4.933; P = .026). ROD+P patient classification did not differ from ROD (clinical/neurocognitive model: χ2 = 1.956; P = 0.162; GMV model: χ2 = 0.005; P = .943). Clinical/neurocognitive and neuroanatomical models demonstrated separability of prototypic depression from psychosis. The shift of comorbid patients toward the depression prototype, observed at the clinical and biological levels, suggests that psychosis with affective comorbidity aligns more strongly to depressive rather than psychotic disease processes. Future studies should assess how these quantitative measures of comorbidity predict outcomes and individual responses to stratified therapeutic interventions.

Indexed as

AdultComorbidityDepressionFemaleHumansMachine LearningMalePsychotic DisordersYoung Adultcomorbiditydepressiongray matter volumemachine learningMRIpsychosistransdiagnostic

Identifiers

PMID33543752
PMCPMC8266654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.