4.7 Review

Applications of machine learning algorithms to predict therapeutic outcomes in depression: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
Volume 241, Issue -, Pages 519-532

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.073

Keywords

Machine learning; Artificial intelligence; Mood disorders; Major depressive disorder; Bipolar disorder; Treatment outcome; Neural networks (computer); Automated pattern recognition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: No previous study has comprehensively reviewed the application of machine learning algorithms in mood disorders populations. Herein, we qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate previous studies of machine learning-devised models that predict therapeutic outcomes in mood disorders populations. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed from inception to February 8, 2018 for relevant studies that included adults with bipolar or unipolar depression; assessed therapeutic outcomes with a pharmacological, neuromodulatory, or manual-based psychotherapeutic intervention for depression; applied a machine learning algorithm; and reported predictors of therapeutic response. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 639 records: 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility; 26 studies (n = 17, 499) and 20 studies (n = 6325) were included in qualitative and quantitative review, respectively. Classification algorithms were able to predict therapeutic outcomes with an overall accuracy of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] of [0.77, 0.87]). Pooled estimates of classification accuracy were significantly greater (p < 0.01) in models informed by multiple data types (e.g., composite of phenomenological patient features and neuroimaging or peripheral gene expression data; pooled proportion [95% CI] = 0.93[0.86, 0.97]) when compared to models with lower-dimension data types (pooledproportion = 0.68 [0.62, 0.74] to0.85 [0.81, 0.88]). Limitations: Most studies were retrospective; differences in machine learning algorithms and their implementation (e.g., cross-validation, hyperparameter tuning); cannot infer importance of individual variables fed into learning algorithm. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms provide a powerful conceptual and analytic framework capable of integrating multiple data types and sources. An integrative approach may more effectively model neurobiological components as functional modules of pathophysiology embedded within the complex, social dynamics that influence the phenomenology of mental disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available