Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38800454›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2022

Computational approaches to treatment response prediction in major depression using brain activity and behavioral data: A systematic review.

Povilas Karvelis, Colleen E Charlton, Shona G Allohverdi, Peter Bedford, Daniel J Hauke, Andreea O Diaconescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Editorial: Focus feature on consciousness and cognition.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Povilas KarvelisKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7469-5624
Colleen E CharltonKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shona G AllohverdiKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter BedfordKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daniel J HaukeKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1772-9239
Andreea O DiaconescuKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3633-9757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major depressive disorder is a heterogeneous diagnostic category with multiple available treatments. With the goal of optimizing treatment selection, researchers are developing computational models that attempt to predict treatment response based on various pretreatment measures. In this paper, we review studies that use brain activity data to predict treatment response. Our aim is to highlight and clarify important methodological differences between various studies that relate to the incorporation of domain knowledge, specifically within two approaches delineated as data-driven and theory-driven. We argue that theory-driven generative modeling, which explicitly models information processing in the brain and thus can capture disease mechanisms, is a promising emerging approach that is only beginning to be utilized in treatment response prediction. The predictors extracted via such models could improve interpretability, which is critical for clinical decision-making. We also identify several methodological limitations across the reviewed studies and provide suggestions for addressing them. Namely, we consider problems with dichotomizing treatment outcomes, the importance of investigating more than one treatment in a given study for differential treatment response predictions, the need for a patient-centered approach for defining treatment outcomes, and finally, the use of internal and external validation methods for improving model generalizability.

Indexed as

Computational psychiatryEEGfMRIMachine learningMajor depressive disorderTreatment response prediction

Identifiers

PMID38800454
PMCPMC11117101

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.