Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33723229›Full record

SynthesisTranslational psychiatry2021

Magnetic resonance imaging for individual prediction of treatment response in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sem E Cohen, Jasper B Zantvoord, Babet N Wezenberg, Claudi L H Bockting, Guido A van Wingen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Towards causal inference-based antidepressant selection with brain and blood biomarkers.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Moderators of treatment response in late-life depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sem E CohenDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jasper B ZantvoordDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6475-902X
Babet N WezenbergDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Claudi L H BocktingDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Guido A van WingenDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.a.vanwingen@amsterdamumc.nl.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No tools are currently available to predict whether a patient suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD) will respond to a certain treatment. Machine learning analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data has shown potential in predicting response for individual patients, which may enable personalized treatment decisions and increase treatment efficacy. Here, we evaluated the accuracy of MRI-guided response prediction in MDD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies using MRI to predict single-subject response to antidepressant treatment in patients with MDD. Classification performance was calculated using a bivariate model and expressed as area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity. In addition, we analyzed differences in classification performance between different interventions and MRI modalities. Meta-analysis of 22 samples including 957 patients showed an overall area under the bivariate summary receiver operating curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), sensitivity of 77% (95% CI 71-82), and specificity of 79% (95% CI 73-84). Although classification performance was higher for electroconvulsive therapy outcome prediction (n = 285, 80% sensitivity, 83% specificity) than medication outcome prediction (n = 283, 75% sensitivity, 72% specificity), there was no significant difference in classification performance between treatments or MRI modalities. Prediction of treatment response using machine learning analysis of MRI data is promising but should not yet be implemented into clinical practice. Future studies with more generalizable samples and external validation are needed to establish the potential of MRI to realize individualized patient care in MDD.

Indexed as

Electroconvulsive TherapyMajor Depressive DisorderAntidepressive AgentsHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID33723229
PMCPMC7960732
OpenAlexW3136007114

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.