Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35908308›Full record

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.

Jacqueline K Harris, Stefanie Hassel, Andrew D Davis, Mojdeh Zamyadi, Stephen R Arnott, Roumen Milev, Raymond W Lam, Benicio N Frey, Geoffrey B Hall, Daniel J Müller and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Breakthroughs and challenges for generating brain network-based biomarkers of treatment response in depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors.

Jacqueline K HarrisDepartment of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: jkh@ualberta.ca.
Stefanie HasselDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew D DavisRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mojdeh ZamyadiRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen R ArnottRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Roumen MilevDepartments of Psychiatry and Psychology, Queen's University, and Providence Care, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Raymond W LamDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Benicio N FreyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Mood Disorders Program and Women's Health Concerns Clinic, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Geoffrey B HallDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel J MüllerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Susan RotzingerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Centre for Depression and Suicide Studies, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sidney H KennedyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Centre for Depression and Suicide Studies, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen C StrotherRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Glenda M MacQueenDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Russell GreinerDepartment of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP 125880
6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMajor Depressive DisorderBiomarkersBrainCanadaEscitalopramHumansBiomarkersEscitalopramDepressionfMRIFunctional connectivityMachine learningResting StateTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID35908308
PMCPMC9421454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.