A Correlative Classification Study of Schizophrenic Patients with Results of Clinical Evaluation and Structural Magnetic Resonance Images

Supervised machine learning classification of psychosis biotypes based on brain structure: findings from the Bipolar-Schizophrenia network for intermediate phenotypes (B-SNIP)

Traditional diagnostic formulations of psychotic disorders have low correspondence with underlying disease neurobiology. This has led to a growing interest in using brain-based biomarkers to capture biologically-informed psychosis constructs. Building upon our prior work on the B-SNIP Psychosis Biotypes, we aimed to examine whether structural MRI (an independent biomarker not used in the Biotype development) can effectively classify the Biotypes. Whole brain voxel-wise grey matter density (GMD) maps from T1-weighted images were used to train and test (using repeated randomized train/test splits) binary L2-penalized logistic regression models to discriminate psychosis cases (n = 557) from healthy controls (CON, n = 251). A total of six models were evaluated across two psychosis categorization schemes: (i) three Biotypes (B1, B2, B3) and (ii) three DSM diagnoses (schizophrenia (SZ), schizoaffective (SAD) and bipolar (BD) disorders). Above-chance classification accuracies were observed in all Biotype (B1 = 0.70, B2 = 0.65, and B3 = 0.56) and diagnosis (SZ = 0.64, SAD = 0.64, and BD = 0.59) models. However, the only model that showed evidence of specificity was B1, i.e., the model was able to discriminate B1 vs. CON and did not misclassify other psychosis cases (B2 or B3) as B1 at rates above nominal chance. The GMD-based classifier evidence for B1 showed a negative association with an estimate of premorbid general intellectual ability, regardless of group membership, i.e. psychosis or CON. Our findings indicate that, complimentary to clinical diagnoses, the B-SNIP Psychosis Biotypes may offer a promising approach to capture specific aspects of psychosis neurobiology.

Sampling inequalities affect generalization of neuroimaging-based diagnostic classifiers in psychiatry

BACKGROUND

The development of machine learning models for aiding in the diagnosis of mental disorder is recognized as a significant breakthrough in the field of psychiatry. However, clinical practice of such models remains a challenge, with poor generalizability being a major limitation.

METHODS

Here, we conducted a pre-registered meta-research assessment on neuroimaging-based models in the psychiatric literature, quantitatively examining global and regional sampling issues over recent decades, from a view that has been relatively underexplored. A total of 476 studies (n = 118,137) were included in the current assessment. Based on these findings, we built a comprehensive 5-star rating system to quantitatively evaluate the quality of existing machine learning models for psychiatric diagnoses.

RESULTS

A global sampling inequality in these models was revealed quantitatively (sampling Gini coefficient (G) = 0.81, p < .01), varying across different countries (regions) (e.g., China, G = 0.47; the USA, G = 0.58; Germany, G = 0.78; the UK, G = 0.87). Furthermore, the severity of this sampling inequality was significantly predicted by national economic levels (β =  - 2.75, p < .001, R²_adj = 0.40; r =  - .84, 95% CI: - .41 to - .97), and was plausibly predictable for model performance, with higher sampling inequality for reporting higher classification accuracy. Further analyses showed that lack of independent testing (84.24% of models, 95% CI: 81.0-87.5%), improper cross-validation (51.68% of models, 95% CI: 47.2-56.2%), and poor technical transparency (87.8% of models, 95% CI: 84.9-90.8%)/availability (80.88% of models, 95% CI: 77.3-84.4%) are prevailing in current diagnostic classifiers despite improvements over time. Relating to these observations, model performances were found decreased in studies with independent cross-country sampling validations (all p < .001, BF₁₀ > 15). In light of this, we proposed a purpose-built quantitative assessment checklist, which demonstrated that the overall ratings of these models increased by publication year but were negatively associated with model performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, improving sampling economic equality and hence the quality of machine learning models may be a crucial facet to plausibly translating neuroimaging-based diagnostic classifiers into clinical practice.

Evaluation of Risk of Bias in Neuroimaging-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Neuroimaging-based artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic models have proliferated in psychiatry. However, their clinical applicability and reporting quality (ie, feasibility) for clinical practice have not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of neuroimaging-based AI models for psychiatric diagnosis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed, full-length articles published between January 1, 1990, and March 16, 2022. Studies aimed at developing or validating neuroimaging-based AI models for clinical diagnosis of psychiatric disorders were included. Reference lists were further searched for suitable original studies. Data extraction followed the CHARMS (Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A closed-loop cross-sequential design was used for quality control. The PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and modified CLEAR (Checklist for Evaluation of Image-Based Artificial Intelligence Reports) benchmarks were used to systematically evaluate ROB and reporting quality.

FINDINGS

A total of 517 studies presenting 555 AI models were included and evaluated. Of these models, 461 (83.1%; 95% CI, 80.0%-86.2%) were rated as having a high overall ROB based on the PROBAST. The ROB was particular high in the analysis domain, including inadequate sample size (398 of 555 models [71.7%; 95% CI, 68.0%-75.6%]), poor model performance examination (with 100% of models lacking calibration examination), and lack of handling data complexity (550 of 555 models [99.1%; 95% CI, 98.3%-99.9%]). None of the AI models was perceived to be applicable to clinical practices. Overall reporting completeness (ie, number of reported items/number of total items) for the AI models was 61.2% (95% CI, 60.6%-61.8%), and the completeness was poorest for the technical assessment domain with 39.9% (95% CI, 38.8%-41.1%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that the clinical applicability and feasibility of neuroimaging-based AI models for psychiatric diagnosis were challenged by a high ROB and poor reporting quality. Particularly in the analysis domain, ROB in AI diagnostic models should be addressed before clinical application.

Accuracy of diagnostic classification algorithms using cognitive-, electrophysiological-, and neuroanatomical data in antipsychotic-naïve schizophrenia patients

BACKGROUND

A wealth of clinical studies have identified objective biomarkers, which separate schizophrenia patients from healthy controls on a group level, but current diagnostic systems solely include clinical symptoms. In this study, we investigate if machine learning algorithms on multimodal data can serve as a framework for clinical translation.

METHODS

Forty-six antipsychotic-naïve, first-episode schizophrenia patients and 58 controls underwent neurocognitive tests, electrophysiology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients underwent clinical assessments before and after 6 weeks of antipsychotic monotherapy with amisulpride. Nine configurations of different supervised machine learning algorithms were applied to first estimate the unimodal diagnostic accuracy, and next to estimate the multimodal diagnostic accuracy. Finally, we explored the predictability of symptom remission.

RESULTS

Cognitive data significantly classified patients from controls (accuracies = 60-69%; p values = 0.0001-0.009). Accuracies of electrophysiology, structural MRI, and diffusion tensor imaging did not exceed chance level. Multimodal analyses with cognition plus any combination of one or more of the remaining three modalities did not outperform cognition alone. None of the modalities predicted symptom remission.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multivariate and multimodal study in antipsychotic-naïve patients, only cognition significantly discriminated patients from controls, and no modality appeared to predict short-term symptom remission. Overall, these findings add to the increasing call for cognition to be included in the definition of schizophrenia. To bring about the full potential of machine learning algorithms in first-episode, antipsychotic-naïve schizophrenia patients, careful a priori variable selection based on independent data as well as inclusion of other modalities may be required.

Segmentation and texture analysis of structural biomarkers using neighborhood-clustering-based level set in MRI of the schizophrenic brain

OBJECTIVE

Schizophrenia (SZ) is a psychiatric disorder that especially affects individuals during their adolescence. There is a need to study the subanatomical regions of SZ brain on magnetic resonance images (MRI) based on morphometry. In this work, an attempt was made to analyze alterations in structure and texture patterns in images of the SZ brain using the level-set method and Laws texture features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

T1-weighted MRI of the brain from Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) database were considered for analysis. Segmentation was carried out using the level-set method. Geometrical and Laws texture features were extracted from the segmented brain stem, corpus callosum, cerebellum, and ventricle regions to analyze pattern changes in SZ.

RESULTS

The level-set method segmented multiple brain regions, with higher similarity and correlation values compared with an optimized method. The geometric features obtained from regions of the corpus callosum and ventricle showed significant variation (p < 0.00001) between normal and SZ brain. Laws texture feature identified a heterogeneous appearance in the brain stem, corpus callosum and ventricular regions, and features from the brain stem were correlated with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

A framework of geometric and Laws texture features obtained from brain subregions can be used as a supplement for diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.