Examining the Most Important Risk Factors for Predicting Youth Persistent and Distressing Psychotic-Like Experiences

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
{"title":"Examining the Most Important Risk Factors for Predicting Youth Persistent and Distressing Psychotic-Like Experiences","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.05.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Persistence and distress distinguish more clinically significant psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) from those that are less likely to be associated with impairment and/or need for care. Identifying risk factors that identify clinically relevant PLEs early in development is important for improving our understanding of the etiopathogenesis of these experiences. Machine learning analyses were used to examine the most important baseline factors distinguishing persistent distressing PLEs.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study data on PLEs from 3 time points (ages 9–13 years), we created the following groups: individuals with persistent distressing PLEs (<em>n</em> = 305), individuals with transient distressing PLEs (<em>n</em> = 374), and individuals with low-level PLEs demographically matched to either the persistent distressing PLEs group (<em>n</em> = 305) or the transient distressing PLEs group (<em>n</em> = 374). Random forest classification models were trained to distinguish persistent distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs, transient distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs, and persistent distressing PLEs from transient distressing PLEs. Models were trained using identified baseline predictors as input features (i.e., cognitive, neural [cortical thickness, resting-state functional connectivity], developmental milestone delays, internalizing symptoms, adverse childhood experiences).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The model distinguishing persistent distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs showed the highest accuracy (test sample accuracy = 69.33%; 95% CI, 61.29%–76.59%). The most important predictors included internalizing symptoms, adverse childhood experiences, and cognitive functioning. Models for distinguishing persistent PLEs from transient distressing PLEs generally performed poorly.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Model performance metrics indicated that while most important factors overlapped across models (e.g., internalizing symptoms), adverse childhood experiences were especially important for predicting persistent distressing PLEs. Machine learning analyses proved useful for distinguishing the most clinically relevant group from the least clinically relevant group but showed limited ability to distinguish among clinically relevant groups that differed in PLE persistence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54231,"journal":{"name":"Biological Psychiatry-Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging","volume":"9 9","pages":"Pages 939-947"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902224001423/pdfft?md5=5294427a509cc5105d54eb65cd43cd79&pid=1-s2.0-S2451902224001423-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Psychiatry-Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902224001423","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Persistence and distress distinguish more clinically significant psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) from those that are less likely to be associated with impairment and/or need for care. Identifying risk factors that identify clinically relevant PLEs early in development is important for improving our understanding of the etiopathogenesis of these experiences. Machine learning analyses were used to examine the most important baseline factors distinguishing persistent distressing PLEs.

Methods

Using Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study data on PLEs from 3 time points (ages 9–13 years), we created the following groups: individuals with persistent distressing PLEs (n = 305), individuals with transient distressing PLEs (n = 374), and individuals with low-level PLEs demographically matched to either the persistent distressing PLEs group (n = 305) or the transient distressing PLEs group (n = 374). Random forest classification models were trained to distinguish persistent distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs, transient distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs, and persistent distressing PLEs from transient distressing PLEs. Models were trained using identified baseline predictors as input features (i.e., cognitive, neural [cortical thickness, resting-state functional connectivity], developmental milestone delays, internalizing symptoms, adverse childhood experiences).

Results

The model distinguishing persistent distressing PLEs from low-level PLEs showed the highest accuracy (test sample accuracy = 69.33%; 95% CI, 61.29%–76.59%). The most important predictors included internalizing symptoms, adverse childhood experiences, and cognitive functioning. Models for distinguishing persistent PLEs from transient distressing PLEs generally performed poorly.

Conclusions

Model performance metrics indicated that while most important factors overlapped across models (e.g., internalizing symptoms), adverse childhood experiences were especially important for predicting persistent distressing PLEs. Machine learning analyses proved useful for distinguishing the most clinically relevant group from the least clinically relevant group but showed limited ability to distinguish among clinically relevant groups that differed in PLE persistence.

研究预测青少年持续和令人不安的精神病样经历的最重要风险因素。
背景:持续性和痛苦会将临床意义更大的精神病样体验(PLEs)与那些不太可能与损伤和/或护理需求相关联的体验区分开来。确定在发展早期区分临床相关的类精神病体验的风险因素,对于提高我们对这些体验的发病机制的认识非常重要。机器学习分析研究了区分持续性困扰性 PLEs 的最重要基线因素:方法:利用青少年大脑认知发展研究(Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study)中三个时间点(9-13 岁)的 PLEs 数据,创建了具有持续性困扰 PLEs 的个体(303 人)、短暂性困扰 PLEs 的个体(374 人)以及与人口统计学相匹配的低水平 PLEs 群体。对随机森林分类模型进行了训练,以区分持续性困扰与低水平 PLEs、短暂性困扰与低水平 PLEs 以及持续性困扰与短暂性困扰 PLEs。使用已识别的基线预测因子作为输入特征(即认知、神经[皮层厚度、静息状态功能连接(RSFC)]、发育里程碑延迟、内化症状、不良童年事件)对模型进行训练:区分持续性困扰与低水平 PLE 的模型显示出最高的准确率(测试样本准确率=69.33%;95% CI:61.29%-76.59%)。最重要的预测因素包括内化症状、不良童年事件和认知功能。区分持续性和短暂性困扰性 PLE 的模型通常表现较差:模型性能指标表明,虽然大多数重要因素(如内化症状)在不同模型中都有重叠,但不良童年事件对于预测持续性困扰型 PLE 尤为重要。事实证明,机器学习分析有助于区分临床相关性最高的组别和临床相关性最低的组别,但在区分在 PLE 持续性方面存在差异的临床相关性组别方面能力有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
1.70%
发文量
247
审稿时长
30 days
期刊介绍: Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging is an official journal of the Society for Biological Psychiatry, whose purpose is to promote excellence in scientific research and education in fields that investigate the nature, causes, mechanisms, and treatments of disorders of thought, emotion, or behavior. In accord with this mission, this peer-reviewed, rapid-publication, international journal focuses on studies using the tools and constructs of cognitive neuroscience, including the full range of non-invasive neuroimaging and human extra- and intracranial physiological recording methodologies. It publishes both basic and clinical studies, including those that incorporate genetic data, pharmacological challenges, and computational modeling approaches. The journal publishes novel results of original research which represent an important new lead or significant impact on the field. Reviews and commentaries that focus on topics of current research and interest are also encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信