Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34215752›Full record

ArticleNPJ schizophrenia2021

Individualized prediction of three- and six-year outcomes of psychosis in a longitudinal multicenter study: a machine learning approach.

Jessica de Nijs, Thijs J Burger, Ronald J Janssen, Seyed Mostafa Kia, Daniël P J van Opstal, Mariken B de Koning, Lieuwe de Haan, GROUP investigators, Wiepke Cahn, Hugo G Schnack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ schizophrenia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Investigating inequalities in patient outcomes for first-episode psychosis.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2024
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

10 authors.

Jessica de Nijs *Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thijs J Burger *Arkin, Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronald J JanssenDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9622-5420
Seyed Mostafa KiaDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7128-814X
Daniël P J van OpstalDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6038-7177
Mariken B de KoningArkin, Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lieuwe de HaanArkin, Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
GROUP investigators
Wiepke CahnDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0482-8759
Hugo G SchnackDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.schnack@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-3853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Schizophrenia and related disorders have heterogeneous outcomes. Individualized prediction of long-term outcomes may be helpful in improving treatment decisions. Utilizing extensive baseline data of 523 patients with a psychotic disorder and variable illness duration, we predicted symptomatic and global outcomes at 3-year and 6-year follow-ups. We classified outcomes as (1) symptomatic: in remission or not in remission, and (2) global outcome, using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, divided into good (GAF ≥ 65) and poor (GAF < 65). Aiming for a robust and interpretable prediction model, we employed a linear support vector machine and recursive feature elimination within a nested cross-validation design to obtain a lean set of predictors. Generalization to out-of-study samples was estimated using leave-one-site-out cross-validation. Prediction accuracies were above chance and ranged from 62.2% to 64.7% (symptomatic outcome), and 63.5-67.6% (global outcome). Leave-one-site-out cross-validation demonstrated the robustness of our models, with a minor drop in predictive accuracies of 2.3% on average. Important predictors included GAF scores, psychotic symptoms, quality of life, antipsychotics use, psychosocial needs, and depressive symptoms. These robust, albeit modestly accurate, long-term prognostic predictions based on lean predictor sets indicate the potential of machine learning models complementing clinical judgment and decision-making. Future model development may benefit from studies scoping patient's and clinicians' needs in prognostication.

Identifiers

PMID34215752
PMCPMC8253813

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.