4.7 Article

Individualized Diagnostic and Prognostic Models for Patients With Psychosis Risk Syndromes: A Meta View on the State of the Art

Journal

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 88, Issue 4, Pages 349-360

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.02.009

Keywords

Biomarkers; Clinical psychobiology; Machine learning; Predictive psychiatry; Psychosis; Translational medicine

Funding

  1. EU-FP7-HEALTH grant for the project PRONIA (Personalized Prognostic Tools for Early Psychosis Management) [602152]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [MH081928]
  3. PRONIA
  4. BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research)
  5. Max Planck Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The clinical high risk (CHR) paradigm has facilitated research into the underpinnings of help-seeking individuals at risk for developing psychosis, aiming at predicting and possibly preventing transition to the overt disorder. Statistical methods such as machine learning and Cox regression have provided the methodological basis for this research by enabling the construction of diagnostic models (i.e., distinguishing CHR individuals from healthy individuals) and prognostic models (i.e., predicting a future outcome) based on different data modalities, including clinical, neurocognitive, and neurobiological data. However, their translation to clinical practice is still hindered by the high heterogeneity of both CHR populations and methodologies applied. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature on diagnostic and prognostic models built on Cox regression and machine learning. Furthermore, we conducted a meta-analysis on prediction performances investigating heterogeneity of methodological approaches and data modality. RESULTS: A total of 44 articles were included, covering 3707 individuals for prognostic studies and 1052 individuals for diagnostic studies (572 CHR patients and 480 healthy control subjects). CHR patients could be classified against healthy control subjects with 78% sensitivity and 77% specificity. Across prognostic models, sensitivity reached 67% and specificity reached 78%. Machine learning models outperformed those applying Cox regression by 10% sensitivity. There was a publication bias for prognostic studies yet no other moderator effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results may be driven by substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity currently affecting several aspects of the CHR field and limiting the clinical implementability of the proposed models. We discuss conceptual and methodological harmonization strategies to facilitate more reliable and generalizable models for future clinical practice.

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