Computational approaches and machine learning for individual-level treatment predictions.
Rationale: The impact of neuroscience-based approaches for psychiatry on pragmatic clinical decision-making has been limited. Although neuroscience has provided insights into basic mechanisms of neural function, these insights have not improved the ability to generate better assessments, prognoses,...
| Publicado en: | Psychopharmacology Vol. 238; no. 5; pp. 1231 - 1240 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
May2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=149947554&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 149947554 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00333158 EJD jtl: Psychopharmacology issn: 00333158 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: May2021 vid: 238 iid: 5 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 149947554 144191897 10.1007/s00213-019-05282-4 149947554 ppf: 1231 ppct: 9 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Computational approaches and machine learning for individual-level treatment predictions. aug: au: Paulus, Martin P. Thompson, Wesley K. affil: Laureate Institute for Brain Research, 6655 S Ave Tulsa, 74136-3326, Yale, OK, USA sug: ab: Rationale: The impact of neuroscience-based approaches for psychiatry on pragmatic clinical decision-making has been limited. Although neuroscience has provided insights into basic mechanisms of neural function, these insights have not improved the ability to generate better assessments, prognoses, diagnoses, or treatment of psychiatric conditions. Objectives: To integrate the emerging findings in machine learning and computational psychiatry to address the question: what measures that are not derived from the patient's self-assessment or the assessment by a trained professional can be used to make more precise predictions about the individual's current state, the individual's future disease trajectory, or the probability to respond to a particular intervention? Results: Currently, the ability to use individual differences to predict differential outcomes is very modest possibly related to the fact that the effect sizes of interventions are small. There is emerging evidence of genetic and neuroimaging-based heterogeneity of psychiatric disorders, which contributes to imprecise predictions. Although the use of machine learning tools to generate clinically actionable predictions is still in its infancy, these approaches may identify subgroups enabling more precise predictions. In addition, computational psychiatry might provide explanatory disease models based on faulty updating of internal values or beliefs. Conclusions: There is a need for larger studies, clinical trials using machine learning, or computational psychiatry model parameters predictions as actionable outcomes, comparing alternative explanatory computational models, and using translational approaches that apply similar paradigms and models in humans and animals. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|