Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945206›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2022

Affinity scores: An individual-centric fingerprinting framework for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Cassandra M J Wannan, Christos Pantelis, Antonia H Merritt, Bruce Tonge, Warda T Syeda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Cassandra M J Wannan *Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia. wannanc@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1317-4635
Christos PantelisMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9565-0238
Antonia H MerrittMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Bruce TongeMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4236-9688
Warda T Syeda *Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia. wtsyeda@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-centric frameworks of biomarker identification for psychiatric disorders focus primarily on comparing averages between groups and assume that diagnostic groups are (1) mutually-exclusive, and (2) homogeneous. There is a paucity of individual-centric approaches capable of identifying individual-specific 'fingerprints' across multiple domains. To address this, we propose a novel framework, combining a range of biopsychosocial markers, including brain structure, cognition, and clinical markers, into higher-level 'fingerprints', capable of capturing intra-illness heterogeneity and inter-illness overlap. A multivariate framework was implemented to identify individualised patterns of brain structure, cognition and clinical markers based on affinity to other participants in the database. First, individual-level affinity scores defined each participant's "neighbourhood" across each measure based on variable-specific hop sizes. Next, diagnostic verification and classification algorithms were implemented based on multivariate affinity score profiles. To perform affinity-based classification, data were divided into training and test samples, and 5-fold nested cross-validation was performed on the training data. Affinity-based classification was compared to weighted K-nearest neighbours (KNN) classification. The framework was applied to the Australian Schizophrenia Research Bank (ASRB) dataset, which included data from individuals with chronic and treatment resistant schizophrenia and healthy controls. Individualised affinity scores provided a 'fingerprint' of brain structure, cognition, and clinical markers, which described the affinity of an individual to the representative groups in the dataset. Diagnostic verification capability was moderate to high depending on the choice of multivariate affinity metric. Affinity score-based classification achieved a high degree of accuracy in the training, nested cross-validation and prediction steps, and outperformed KNN classification in the training and test datasets. Affinity scores demonstrate utility in two keys ways: (1) Early and accurate diagnosis of neuropsychiatric disorders, whereby an individual can be grouped within a diagnostic category/ies that best matches their fingerprint, and (2) identification of biopsychosocial factors that most strongly characterise individuals/disorders, and which may be most amenable to intervention.

Indexed as

SchizophreniaAlgorithmsAustraliaBrainCognitionHumans

Identifiers

PMID35945206
PMCPMC9363458

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.