Monopoli Camilla , Colombo Federica , Cazzella Tommaso , Fortaner-Uyà Lidia , Raffaelli Laura , Calesella Federico , Mario Gennaro , Maccario Melania , Pigoni Alessandro , Maggioni Eleonora , Brambilla Paolo , Benedetti Francesco , Vai Benedetta
{"title":"机器学习能否预测情感性和非情感性精神病的治疗结果?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Monopoli Camilla , Colombo Federica , Cazzella Tommaso , Fortaner-Uyà Lidia , Raffaelli Laura , Calesella Federico , Mario Gennaro , Maccario Melania , Pigoni Alessandro , Maggioni Eleonora , Brambilla Paolo , Benedetti Francesco , Vai Benedetta","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Machine learning (ML) could be useful in identifying reliable predictors of treatment response in affective and not affective psychoses, potentially helping to propose personalized interventions. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated studies exploiting ML algorithms to predict the improvement of psychotic symptoms, cognition and quality of life in psychoses related to different treatments. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases updated until February 2024, identifying 64 articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals. We modelled a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the overall accuracy reached in 51 studies. Subgroup analyses and meta regressions were performed to compare predictive accuracy across different predicted target class (i.e., improvers or responders <em>versus</em> not responders or treatment-resistant), diagnosis, input features, type and duration of treatments, ML algorithms, sample size, year of publication and quality assessment, evaluated with the PROBAST tool. ML models predicted a treatment response with a total accuracy of 80 % (95 %CI [0.76;0.83]), despite detecting a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=0.89). Significant differences were observed between input features (<em>p</em> = .004) and treatments (<em>p</em> = .01). The best predictor was electroencephalography data (88 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.93], I²=0.50), followed by the combined treatments (85 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.87], I²=0.51). We identified a general low quality of studies, with 44 having a high risk of bias. Overall, ML seems a promising tool for predicting therapeutic outcomes in affective and not affective psychoses. However, specific attention should be paid to enhancing reproducibility and improving study methodology to better translate results into clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":"178 ","pages":"Article 106357"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Machine Learning predict therapeutic outcomes in affective and not affective psychosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Monopoli Camilla , Colombo Federica , Cazzella Tommaso , Fortaner-Uyà Lidia , Raffaelli Laura , Calesella Federico , Mario Gennaro , Maccario Melania , Pigoni Alessandro , Maggioni Eleonora , Brambilla Paolo , Benedetti Francesco , Vai Benedetta\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Machine learning (ML) could be useful in identifying reliable predictors of treatment response in affective and not affective psychoses, potentially helping to propose personalized interventions. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated studies exploiting ML algorithms to predict the improvement of psychotic symptoms, cognition and quality of life in psychoses related to different treatments. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases updated until February 2024, identifying 64 articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals. We modelled a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the overall accuracy reached in 51 studies. Subgroup analyses and meta regressions were performed to compare predictive accuracy across different predicted target class (i.e., improvers or responders <em>versus</em> not responders or treatment-resistant), diagnosis, input features, type and duration of treatments, ML algorithms, sample size, year of publication and quality assessment, evaluated with the PROBAST tool. ML models predicted a treatment response with a total accuracy of 80 % (95 %CI [0.76;0.83]), despite detecting a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=0.89). Significant differences were observed between input features (<em>p</em> = .004) and treatments (<em>p</em> = .01). The best predictor was electroencephalography data (88 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.93], I²=0.50), followed by the combined treatments (85 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.87], I²=0.51). We identified a general low quality of studies, with 44 having a high risk of bias. Overall, ML seems a promising tool for predicting therapeutic outcomes in affective and not affective psychoses. However, specific attention should be paid to enhancing reproducibility and improving study methodology to better translate results into clinical practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews\",\"volume\":\"178 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425003586\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425003586","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Can Machine Learning predict therapeutic outcomes in affective and not affective psychosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Machine learning (ML) could be useful in identifying reliable predictors of treatment response in affective and not affective psychoses, potentially helping to propose personalized interventions. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated studies exploiting ML algorithms to predict the improvement of psychotic symptoms, cognition and quality of life in psychoses related to different treatments. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases updated until February 2024, identifying 64 articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals. We modelled a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the overall accuracy reached in 51 studies. Subgroup analyses and meta regressions were performed to compare predictive accuracy across different predicted target class (i.e., improvers or responders versus not responders or treatment-resistant), diagnosis, input features, type and duration of treatments, ML algorithms, sample size, year of publication and quality assessment, evaluated with the PROBAST tool. ML models predicted a treatment response with a total accuracy of 80 % (95 %CI [0.76;0.83]), despite detecting a high heterogeneity (I2=0.89). Significant differences were observed between input features (p = .004) and treatments (p = .01). The best predictor was electroencephalography data (88 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.93], I²=0.50), followed by the combined treatments (85 % of accuracy, 95 %CI [0.82;0.87], I²=0.51). We identified a general low quality of studies, with 44 having a high risk of bias. Overall, ML seems a promising tool for predicting therapeutic outcomes in affective and not affective psychoses. However, specific attention should be paid to enhancing reproducibility and improving study methodology to better translate results into clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.