Saskia Denecke, Felix Strakeljahn, Antonia Bott, Tania M Lincoln
{"title":"使用机器学习来预测基于在系统文献检索中确定的妄想的病因学模型的迫害信念。","authors":"Saskia Denecke, Felix Strakeljahn, Antonia Bott, Tania M Lincoln","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using machine learning to predict persecutory beliefs based on aetiological models of delusions identified in a systematic literature search.\",\"authors\":\"Saskia Denecke, Felix Strakeljahn, Antonia Bott, Tania M Lincoln\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communications Psychology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"138\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479767/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communications Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
妄想的病因模型提出了广泛的预测因子。这些预测因子在多大程度上解释了整个连续体中受迫害信念的差异,这需要系统的调查。作为先前综述的一部分,在使用PubMed、Web of Science和Science Direct数据库的系统文献检索中确定了51种妄想的病因模型。剔除重复,从这些模型中提取了66个妄想和迫害性妄想的独特假设预测因子,其中55个符合我们的纳入标准,并在一个按妄想严重程度分层的横断面在线样本中进行评估(N = 336),使用自我报告和行为测量。利用机器学习(即嵌套交叉验证的随机森林),我们调查了基于模型的预测因子解释自我报告的受迫害信念的程度,确定了最相关的预测因子,并调查了它们在解释受迫害信念方面的特异性,而不是妄想信念或一般的精神病理症状。机器学习模型解释了31%的受迫害信念差异、47%的一般妄想和77%的一般精神病理。对预测受迫害信念影响最大的10个预测因子包括:不信任、认知融合、排斥、威胁预期、广义负面他人信念、信任、异常突出、幻觉、压力和情绪调节困难。所提出的预测因子的有限解释力引发了对现有模型有效性的质疑,并表明可能缺少针对迫害妄想的关键预测因子。我们的发现强调了调查、完善和交叉验证理论病因模型的重要性,以提高我们对妄想病因学的理解。
Using machine learning to predict persecutory beliefs based on aetiological models of delusions identified in a systematic literature search.
Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.