Separating generalized anxiety disorder from major depression using clinical, hormonal, and structural MRI data: A multimodal machine learning study

Abstract

BackgroundGeneralized anxiety disorder (GAD) is difficult to recognize and hard to separate from major depression (MD) in clinical settings. Biomarkers might support diagnostic decisions. This study used machine learning on multimodal biobehavioral data from a sample of GAD, MD and healthy subjects to differentiate subjects with a disorder from healthy subjects (case‐classification) and to differentiate GAD from MD (disorder‐classification).MethodsSubjects with GAD (n = 19), MD without GAD (n = 14), and healthy comparison subjects (n = 24) were included. The sample was matched regarding age, sex, handedness and education and free of psychopharmacological medication. Binary support vector machines were used within a nested leave‐one‐out cross‐validation framework. Clinical questionnaires, cortisol release, gray matter (GM), and white matter (WM) volumes were used as input data separately and in combination.ResultsQuestionnaire data were well‐suited for case‐classification but not disorder‐classification (accuracies: 96.40%, p < .001; 56.58%, p > .22). The opposite pattern was found for imaging data (case‐classification GM/WM: 58.71%, p = .09/43.18%, p > .66; disorder‐classification GM/WM: 68.05%, p = .034/58.27%, p > .15) and for cortisol data (38.02%, p = .84; 74.60%, p = .009). All data combined achieved 90.10% accuracy (p < .001) for case‐classification and 67.46% accuracy (p = .0268) for disorder‐classification.ConclusionsIn line with previous evidence, classification of GAD was difficult using clinical questionnaire data alone. Particularly cortisol and GM volume data were able to provide incremental value for the classification of GAD. Findings suggest that neurobiological biomarkers are a useful target for further research to delineate their potential contribution to diagnostic processes.

Machine learning in major depression: From classification to treatment outcome prediction

“…Almost all of the selected studies used SVM or its variant method as the primary classification method and use LOOCV for cross validation. The reason why SVM is the most popular choice among depression classification is because of its useful strengths on including a reliable theoretical foundation and its flexible response to high‐dimensional data.…”

Data Analytics in Smart Healthcare: The Recent Developments and Beyond

“…Detection of dementia (including Alzheimer's disease) [20][21][22] Detection of anxiety [23][24][25] Medicalchain-Blockchain and healthcare [26][27][28] Genetics and genomics [29][30][31] Virtual reality in healthcare [32][33][34] Social media in healthcare [35][36][37] Robotic surgery [38][39][40]…”

Melampus: um modelo deep learning para triagem psicológica infantil

“…Em uma análise mais generalista da produção cientí ca com foco na avaliação psicológica computadorizada, percebe-se que a grande maioria dos modelos preditivos construídos utilizam dados provenientes de exames bioquímicos, EEGs (eletroencefalogramas) e ressonâncias magnéticas (Hosseinifard et al;2013;Foland-Ross et al;Patel et al;Jiang et al;2016;Shim et al;2016;Li et al;2016;Hilbert et al;Zheng et al;. Apenas um dos trabalhos encontrados pelos autores empregou testes baseados em produção de desenhos como ferramenta de psicodiagnóstico (in Kim, Kang, Chung and joo Hong; 2012).…”

“…Na literatura recente, percebe-se crescente interesse no emprego de aprendizado de máquina, ou machine learning, para a construção de instrumentos de avaliação clínica (Seixas et al;Jiménez-Serrano et al;Carpenter et al;2016;Kim et al;Zhu et al;Hilbert et al;. Luxton (2014) acredita que aplicações que empregam aprendizado de máquina para a realização de psicodiagnóstico podem ser mais e cientes e so sticadas em relação aos métodos comuns.…”