Predicting Antidepressant Treatment Response From Cortical Structure on MRI: A Mega-Analysis From the ENIGMA-MDD Working Group.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Maarten G Poirot, Daphne E Boucherie, Matthan W A Caan, Roberto Goya-Maldonado, Vladimir Belov, Emmanuelle Corruble, Romain Colle, Baptiste Couvy-Duchesne, Toshiharu Kamishikiryo, Hotaka Shinzato, Naho Ichikawa, Go Okada, Yasumasa Okamoto, Ben J Harrison, Christopher G Davey, Alec J Jamieson, Kathryn R Cullen, Zeynep Başgöze, Bonnie Klimes-Dougan, Bryon A Mueller, Francesco Benedetti, Sara Poletti, Elisa M T Melloni, Christopher R K Ching, Ling-Li Zeng, Joaquim Radua, Laura K M Han, Neda Jahanshad, Sophia I Thomopoulos, Elena Pozzi, Dick J Veltman, Lianne Schmaal, Paul M Thompson, Henricus G Ruhe, Liesbeth Reneman, Anouk Schrantee
{"title":"Predicting Antidepressant Treatment Response From Cortical Structure on MRI: A Mega-Analysis From the ENIGMA-MDD Working Group.","authors":"Maarten G Poirot, Daphne E Boucherie, Matthan W A Caan, Roberto Goya-Maldonado, Vladimir Belov, Emmanuelle Corruble, Romain Colle, Baptiste Couvy-Duchesne, Toshiharu Kamishikiryo, Hotaka Shinzato, Naho Ichikawa, Go Okada, Yasumasa Okamoto, Ben J Harrison, Christopher G Davey, Alec J Jamieson, Kathryn R Cullen, Zeynep Başgöze, Bonnie Klimes-Dougan, Bryon A Mueller, Francesco Benedetti, Sara Poletti, Elisa M T Melloni, Christopher R K Ching, Ling-Li Zeng, Joaquim Radua, Laura K M Han, Neda Jahanshad, Sophia I Thomopoulos, Elena Pozzi, Dick J Veltman, Lianne Schmaal, Paul M Thompson, Henricus G Ruhe, Liesbeth Reneman, Anouk Schrantee","doi":"10.1002/hbm.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurately predicting individual antidepressant treatment response could expedite the lengthy trial-and-error process of finding an effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). We tested and compared machine learning-based methods that predict individual-level pharmacotherapeutic treatment response using cortical morphometry from multisite longitudinal cohorts. We conducted an international analysis of pooled data from six sites of the ENIGMA-MDD consortium (n = 262 MDD patients; age = 36.5 ± 15.3 years; 154 (59%) female; mean response rate = 57%). Treatment response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in symptom severity score after 4-12 weeks post-initiation of antidepressant treatment. Structural MRI was acquired before, or < 14 days after, treatment initiation. The cortex was parcellated using FreeSurfer, from which cortical thickness and surface area were measured. We tested several machine learning pipeline configurations, which varied in (i) the way we presented the cortical data (i.e., average values per region of interest, as a vector containing voxel-wise cortical thickness and surface area measures, and as cortical thickness and surface area projections), (ii) whether we included clinical data, and the (iii) machine learning model (i.e., gradient boosting, support vector machine, and neural network classifiers) and (iv) cross-validation methods (i.e., k-fold and leave-one-site-out) we used. First, we tested if the overall predictive performance of the pipelines was better than chance, with a corrected 10-fold cross-validation permutation test. Second, we compared if some machine learning pipeline configurations outperformed others. In an exploratory analysis, we repeated our first analysis in three subpopulations, namely patients (i) from a single site, (ii) with comparable response rates, and (iii) showing the least (first quartile) and the most (fourth quartile) treatment response, which we call the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation. Finally, we explored the effect of including subcortical volumetric data on model performance. Overall, performance predicting antidepressant treatment response was not significantly better than chance (balanced accuracy = 50.5%; p = 0.66) and did not vary with alternative pipeline configurations. Exploratory analyses revealed that performance across models was only significantly better than chance in the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation (balanced accuracy = 63.9%, p = 0.001). Including subcortical data did not alter the observed model performance. Cortical structural MRI alone could not reliably predict individual pharmacotherapeutic treatment response in MDD. None of the used machine learning pipeline configurations outperformed the others. In exploratory analyses, we found that predicting response in the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation was feasible on both cortical data alone and combined with subcortical data, which suggests that specific MDD subpopulations may exhibit response-related patterns in structural data. Future work may use multimodal data to predict treatment response in MDD.</p>","PeriodicalId":13019,"journal":{"name":"Human Brain Mapping","volume":"46 1","pages":"e70053"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Brain Mapping","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.70053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurately predicting individual antidepressant treatment response could expedite the lengthy trial-and-error process of finding an effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). We tested and compared machine learning-based methods that predict individual-level pharmacotherapeutic treatment response using cortical morphometry from multisite longitudinal cohorts. We conducted an international analysis of pooled data from six sites of the ENIGMA-MDD consortium (n = 262 MDD patients; age = 36.5 ± 15.3 years; 154 (59%) female; mean response rate = 57%). Treatment response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in symptom severity score after 4-12 weeks post-initiation of antidepressant treatment. Structural MRI was acquired before, or < 14 days after, treatment initiation. The cortex was parcellated using FreeSurfer, from which cortical thickness and surface area were measured. We tested several machine learning pipeline configurations, which varied in (i) the way we presented the cortical data (i.e., average values per region of interest, as a vector containing voxel-wise cortical thickness and surface area measures, and as cortical thickness and surface area projections), (ii) whether we included clinical data, and the (iii) machine learning model (i.e., gradient boosting, support vector machine, and neural network classifiers) and (iv) cross-validation methods (i.e., k-fold and leave-one-site-out) we used. First, we tested if the overall predictive performance of the pipelines was better than chance, with a corrected 10-fold cross-validation permutation test. Second, we compared if some machine learning pipeline configurations outperformed others. In an exploratory analysis, we repeated our first analysis in three subpopulations, namely patients (i) from a single site, (ii) with comparable response rates, and (iii) showing the least (first quartile) and the most (fourth quartile) treatment response, which we call the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation. Finally, we explored the effect of including subcortical volumetric data on model performance. Overall, performance predicting antidepressant treatment response was not significantly better than chance (balanced accuracy = 50.5%; p = 0.66) and did not vary with alternative pipeline configurations. Exploratory analyses revealed that performance across models was only significantly better than chance in the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation (balanced accuracy = 63.9%, p = 0.001). Including subcortical data did not alter the observed model performance. Cortical structural MRI alone could not reliably predict individual pharmacotherapeutic treatment response in MDD. None of the used machine learning pipeline configurations outperformed the others. In exploratory analyses, we found that predicting response in the extreme (non-)responders subpopulation was feasible on both cortical data alone and combined with subcortical data, which suggests that specific MDD subpopulations may exhibit response-related patterns in structural data. Future work may use multimodal data to predict treatment response in MDD.

从核磁共振成像的皮质结构预测抗抑郁治疗反应:ENIGMA-MDD工作组的大型分析。
准确预测个体抗抑郁药物治疗的反应可以加快寻找重度抑郁症(MDD)有效治疗方法的漫长试错过程。我们测试并比较了基于机器学习的方法,这些方法使用来自多位点纵向队列的皮质形态测量来预测个体水平的药物治疗反应。我们对ENIGMA-MDD联盟6个站点的汇总数据进行了国际分析(n = 262名MDD患者;年龄= 36.5±15.3岁;女性154例(59%);平均应答率= 57%)。治疗反应定义为在开始抗抑郁药治疗后4-12周后症状严重程度评分降低≥50%。之前或之前获得结构MRI
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
Human Brain Mapping
Human Brain Mapping 医学-核医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
401
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Brain Mapping publishes peer-reviewed basic, clinical, technical, and theoretical research in the interdisciplinary and rapidly expanding field of human brain mapping. The journal features research derived from non-invasive brain imaging modalities used to explore the spatial and temporal organization of the neural systems supporting human behavior. Imaging modalities of interest include positron emission tomography, event-related potentials, electro-and magnetoencephalography, magnetic resonance imaging, and single-photon emission tomography. Brain mapping research in both normal and clinical populations is encouraged. Article formats include Research Articles, Review Articles, Clinical Case Studies, and Technique, as well as Technological Developments, Theoretical Articles, and Synthetic Reviews. Technical advances, such as novel brain imaging methods, analyses for detecting or localizing neural activity, synergistic uses of multiple imaging modalities, and strategies for the design of behavioral paradigms and neural-systems modeling are of particular interest. The journal endorses the propagation of methodological standards and encourages database development in the field of human brain mapping.
×
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