Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39271064›Full record

ArticleJournal of affective disorders2025

Reinforcement learning processes as forecasters of depression remission.

Vansh Bansal, Katherine L McCurry, Jonathan Lisinski, Dong-Youl Kim, Shivani Goyal, John M Wang, Jacob Lee, Vanessa M Brown, Stephen M LaConte, Brooks Casas and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Vansh BansalFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America.
Katherine L McCurryDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Jonathan LisinskiFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Dong-Youl KimFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Shivani GoyalFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America.
John M WangFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Jacob LeeFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Vanessa M BrownDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Stephen M LaConteFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America; Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Brooks CasasFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America; Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Pearl H ChiuFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA, United States of America. Electronic address: chiup@vtc.vt.edu.

Funding

Evaluating overlap and distinctiveness in neurocomputational loss and reward elements of the RDoC matrixR01MH127773 · NIMH · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI CHIU, PEARL H · 2021 to 2025
$3.9M
Neural Substrates of Reinforcement Learning and its Training in Major DepressionR01MH106756 · NIMH · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI CHIU, PEARL H · 2016 to 2020
$3.7M
Sub-second neurochemistry of error signals and affective processing in depressionR01MH122512 · NIMH · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI PEARL H CHIU, P Read Montague · 2022 to 2026
$3.7M
Neurocomputational substrates of maladaptive uncertainty learning and avoidance in anxietyK23MH122626 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BROWN, VANESSA · 2021 to 2025
$854k
NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH122626NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH106756NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH122512NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH127773
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAspects of reinforcement learning have been associated with specific depression symptoms and may inform the course of depressive illness.

methodsWe applied support vector machines to investigate whether blood‑oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses linked with neural prediction error (nPE) and neural expected value (nEV) from a probabilistic learning task could forecast depression remission. We investigated whether predictions were moderated by treatment use or symptoms. Participants included 55 individuals (n = 39 female) with a depression diagnosis at baseline; 36 of these individuals completed standard cognitive behavioral therapy and 19 were followed during naturalistic course of illness. All participants were assessed for depression diagnosis at a follow-up visit.

resultsBoth nPE and nEV classifiers forecasted remission significantly better than null classifiers. The nEV classifier performed significantly better than the nPE classifier. We found no main or interaction effects of treatment status on nPE or nEV accuracy. We found a significant interaction between nPE-forecasted remission status and anhedonia, but not for negative affect or anxious arousal, when controlling for nEV-forecasted remission status. LIMITATIONS: Our sample size, while comparable to that of other studies, limits options for maximizing and evaluating model performance. We addressed this with two standard methods for optimizing model performance (90:10 train and test scheme and bootstrapped sampling).

conclusionsResults support nEV and nPE as relevant biobehavioral signals for understanding depression outcome independent of treatment status, with nEV being stronger than nPE as a predictor of remission. Reinforcement learning variables may be useful components of an individualized medicine framework for depression healthcare.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyReinforcement, PsychologyAdultAnhedoniaDepressionFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle AgedRemission InductionSupport Vector MachineYoung AdultCognitive neuroscienceDepressionMachine learningPredictive modelingReinforcement learningTask functional imaging

Identifiers

PMID39271064
PMCPMC11573115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.