ArticleClinical and translational science2021
Application of machine learning to predict reduction in total PANSS score and enrich enrollment in schizophrenia clinical trials.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individualized Medication Selection and Outcome Prediction for Patients With Dementia and BPSD Based on Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII): A Retrospective Case-Control Study.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in schizophrenia rehabilitation management: a systematic scoping review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Ensuring generalizability and clinical utility in mental health care applications: Robust artificial intelligence-based treatment predictions in diverse psychosis populations.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Personalized Prediction of Clozapine Treatment Response Using Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Data in Japanese Patients with Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing treatment response prediction in first-episode psychosis: integrating clinical and electroencephalography features.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Psychotic Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- An explainable machine learning-based phenomapping strategy for adaptive predictive enrichment in randomized clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- The MPRINT Hub Data, Model, Knowledge and Research Coordination Center: Bridging the gap in maternal-pediatric therapeutics research through data integration and pharmacometrics.Pharmacotherapy · 2023Review
- Machine learning methods to predict outcomes of pharmacological treatment in psychosis.Translational psychiatry · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trial efficiency, defined as facilitating patient enrollment, and reducing the time to reach safety and efficacy decision points, is a critical driving factor for making improvements in therapeutic development. The present work evaluated a machine learning (ML) approach to improve phase II or proof-of-concept trials designed to address unmet medical needs in treating schizophrenia. Diagnostic data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) trial were used to develop a binary classification ML model predicting individual patient response as either "improvement," defined as greater than 20% reduction in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, or "no improvement," defined as an inadequate treatment response (<20% reduction in total PANSS). A random forest algorithm performed best relative to other tree-based approaches in model ability to classify patients after 6 months of treatment. Although model ability to identify true positives, a measure of model sensitivity, was poor (<0.2), its specificity, true negative rate, was high (0.948). A second model, adapted from the first, was subsequently applied as a proof-of-concept for the ML approach to supplement trial enrollment by identifying patients not expected to improve based on their baseline diagnostic scores. In three virtual trials applying this screening approach, the percentage of patients predicted to improve ranged from 46% to 48%, consistently approximately double the CATIE response rate of 22%. These results show the promising application of ML to improve clinical trial efficiency and, as such, ML models merit further consideration and development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.