Cargando…
Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response
OBJECTIVES: Predictors for unfavorable treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) applicable for treatment selection are still lacking. The database of a longitudinal multicenter study on 1079 acutely depressed patients, performed by the German research network on depression (GRND), allows...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7839691/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acps.13250 |
_version_ | 1783643433816031232 |
---|---|
author | Kautzky, Alexander Möller, Hans‐Juergen Dold, Markus Bartova, Lucie Seemüller, Florian Laux, Gerd Riedel, Michael Gaebel, Wolfgang Kasper, Siegfried |
author_facet | Kautzky, Alexander Möller, Hans‐Juergen Dold, Markus Bartova, Lucie Seemüller, Florian Laux, Gerd Riedel, Michael Gaebel, Wolfgang Kasper, Siegfried |
author_sort | Kautzky, Alexander |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Predictors for unfavorable treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) applicable for treatment selection are still lacking. The database of a longitudinal multicenter study on 1079 acutely depressed patients, performed by the German research network on depression (GRND), allows supervised and unsupervised learning to further elucidate the interplay of clinical and psycho‐sociodemographic variables and their predictive impact on treatment outcome phenotypes. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: Treatment response was defined by a change of HAM‐D 17‐item baseline score ≥50% and remission by the established threshold of ≤7, respectively, after up to eight weeks of inpatient treatment. After hierarchical symptom clustering and stratification by treatment subtypes (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antipsychotic, and lithium augmentation), prediction models for different outcome phenotypes were computed with random forest in a cross‐center validation design. In total, 88 predictors were implemented. RESULTS: Clustering revealed four distinct HAM‐D subscores related to emotional, anxious, sleep, and appetite symptoms, respectively. After feature selection, classification models reached moderate to high accuracies up to 0.85. Highest accuracies were observed for the SSRI and TCA subgroups and for sleep and appetite symptoms, while anxious symptoms showed poor predictability. CONCLUSION: Our results support a decisive role for machine learning in the management of antidepressant treatment. Treatment‐ and symptom‐specific algorithms may increase accuracies by reducing heterogeneity. Especially, predictors related to duration of illness, baseline depression severity, anxiety and somatic symptoms, and personality traits moderate treatment success. However, prospectives application of machine learning models will be necessary to prove their value for the clinic. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7839691 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78396912021-02-02 Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response Kautzky, Alexander Möller, Hans‐Juergen Dold, Markus Bartova, Lucie Seemüller, Florian Laux, Gerd Riedel, Michael Gaebel, Wolfgang Kasper, Siegfried Acta Psychiatr Scand Original Articles OBJECTIVES: Predictors for unfavorable treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) applicable for treatment selection are still lacking. The database of a longitudinal multicenter study on 1079 acutely depressed patients, performed by the German research network on depression (GRND), allows supervised and unsupervised learning to further elucidate the interplay of clinical and psycho‐sociodemographic variables and their predictive impact on treatment outcome phenotypes. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: Treatment response was defined by a change of HAM‐D 17‐item baseline score ≥50% and remission by the established threshold of ≤7, respectively, after up to eight weeks of inpatient treatment. After hierarchical symptom clustering and stratification by treatment subtypes (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antipsychotic, and lithium augmentation), prediction models for different outcome phenotypes were computed with random forest in a cross‐center validation design. In total, 88 predictors were implemented. RESULTS: Clustering revealed four distinct HAM‐D subscores related to emotional, anxious, sleep, and appetite symptoms, respectively. After feature selection, classification models reached moderate to high accuracies up to 0.85. Highest accuracies were observed for the SSRI and TCA subgroups and for sleep and appetite symptoms, while anxious symptoms showed poor predictability. CONCLUSION: Our results support a decisive role for machine learning in the management of antidepressant treatment. Treatment‐ and symptom‐specific algorithms may increase accuracies by reducing heterogeneity. Especially, predictors related to duration of illness, baseline depression severity, anxiety and somatic symptoms, and personality traits moderate treatment success. However, prospectives application of machine learning models will be necessary to prove their value for the clinic. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-11-27 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7839691/ /pubmed/33141944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acps.13250 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kautzky, Alexander Möller, Hans‐Juergen Dold, Markus Bartova, Lucie Seemüller, Florian Laux, Gerd Riedel, Michael Gaebel, Wolfgang Kasper, Siegfried Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title | Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title_full | Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title_fullStr | Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title_full_unstemmed | Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title_short | Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
title_sort | combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7839691/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acps.13250 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kautzkyalexander combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT mollerhansjuergen combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT doldmarkus combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT bartovalucie combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT seemullerflorian combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT lauxgerd combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT riedelmichael combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT gaebelwolfgang combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse AT kaspersiegfried combiningmachinelearningalgorithmsforpredictionofantidepressanttreatmentresponse |