ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2022
Predicting escitalopram treatment response from pre-treatment and early response resting state fMRI in a multi-site sample: A CAN-BIND-1 report.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning in the prediction of treatment response for emotional disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical psychology review · 2025Pooled it
- From rest to focus: pharmacological modulation of the relationship between resting state dorsal attention network dynamics and task-based brain activation.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Trial
- Generalizability of Treatment Outcome Prediction Across Antidepressant Treatment Trials in Depression.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Resting-state fMRI-based machine learning for predicting SSRI treatment response in major depressive disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Predicting Antidepressant Treatment Response From Cortical Structure on MRI: A Mega-Analysis From the ENIGMA-MDD Working Group.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Antidepressant Treatment Response Prediction With Early Assessment of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Micro-RNA.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025Article
- Breakthroughs and challenges for generating brain network-based biomarkers of treatment response in depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Article
- AI-assisted prediction of differential response to antidepressant classes using electronic health records.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Individual-Level Prediction of Exposure Therapy Outcome Using Structural and Functional MRI Data in Spider Phobia: A Machine-Learning Study.Depression and anxiety · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many previous intervention studies have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to predict the antidepressant response of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); however, practical constraints have limited many of those attempts to small, single centre studies which may not adequately reflect how these models will generalize when used in clinical practice. Not only does the act of collecting data at multiple sites generally increase sample sizes (a critical point in machine learning development) it also generates a more heterogeneous dataset due to systematic differences in scanners at different sites, and geographical differences in patient populations. As part of the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND-1) study, 144 MDD patients from six sites underwent resting state fMRI prior to starting escitalopram treatment, and again two weeks after the start. Here, we consider ways to use machine learning techniques to produce models that can predict response (measured at eight weeks after initiation), based on various parcellations, functional connectivity (FC) metrics, dimensionality reduction algorithms, and base learners, and also whether to use scans from one or both time points. Models that use only baseline (pre-treatment) or only week 2 (early-response) whole-brain FC features consistently failed to perform significantly better than default models. Utilizing the change in FC between these two time points, however, yielded significant results, with the best performing analytical pipeline achieving 69.6% (SD 10.8) accuracy. These results appear contrary to findings from many smaller single-site studies, which report substantially higher predictive accuracies from models trained on only baseline resting state FC features, suggesting these models may not generalize well beyond data used for development. Further, these results indicate the potential value of collecting data both before and shortly after treatment initiation.
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.