Development and evaluation of a multimodal marker of major depressive disorder
Yang, Jie; Zhang, Mengru; Ahn, Hongshik; Zhang, Qing; Jin, Tony B.; Li, Ien; Nemesure, Matthew; Joshi, Nandita; Jiang, Haoran; Miller, Jeffrey M.; Ogden, Robert Todd; Petkova, Eva; Milak, Matthew S.; Sublette, Mary Elizabeth; Sullivan, Gregory M.; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Weissman, Myrna; McGrath, Patrick J.; Fava, Maurizio; Kurian, Benji T.; Pizzagalli, Diego A.; Cooper, Crystal M.; McInnis, Melvin; Oquendo, Maria A.; Mann, Joseph John; Parsey, Ramin V.; DeLorenzo, Christine
2018-11
Citation
Yang, Jie; Zhang, Mengru; Ahn, Hongshik; Zhang, Qing; Jin, Tony B.; Li, Ien; Nemesure, Matthew; Joshi, Nandita; Jiang, Haoran; Miller, Jeffrey M.; Ogden, Robert Todd; Petkova, Eva; Milak, Matthew S.; Sublette, Mary Elizabeth; Sullivan, Gregory M.; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Weissman, Myrna; McGrath, Patrick J.; Fava, Maurizio; Kurian, Benji T.; Pizzagalli, Diego A.; Cooper, Crystal M.; McInnis, Melvin; Oquendo, Maria A.; Mann, Joseph John; Parsey, Ramin V.; DeLorenzo, Christine (2018). "Development and evaluation of a multimodal marker of major depressive disorder." Human Brain Mapping 39(11): 4420-4439.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify biomarkers of major depressive disorder (MDD), by relating neuroimage‐derived measures to binary (MDD/control), ordinal (severe MDD/mild MDD/control), or continuous (depression severity) outcomes. To address MDD heterogeneity, factors (severity of psychic depression, motivation, anxiety, psychosis, and sleep disturbance) were also used as outcomes. A multisite, multimodal imaging (diffusion MRI [dMRI] and structural MRI [sMRI]) cohort (52 controls and 147 MDD patients) and several modeling techniques—penalized logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine (SVM)—were used. An additional cohort (25 controls and 83 MDD patients) was used for validation. The optimally performing classifier (SVM) had a 26.0% misclassification rate (binary), 52.2 ± 1.69% accuracy (ordinal) and r = .36 correlation coefficient (p < .001, continuous). Using SVM, R2 values for prediction of any MDD factors were <10%. Binary classification in the external data set resulted in 87.95% sensitivity and 32.00% specificity. Though observed classification rates are too low for clinical utility, four image‐based features contributed to accuracy across all models and analyses—two dMRI‐based measures (average fractional anisotropy in the right cuneus and left insula) and two sMRI‐based measures (asymmetry in the volume of the pars triangularis and the cerebellum) and may serve as a priori regions for future analyses. The poor accuracy of classification and predictive results found here reflects current equivocal findings and sheds light on challenges of using these modalities for MDD biomarker identification. Further, this study suggests a paradigm (e.g., multiple classifier evaluation with external validation) for future studies to avoid nongeneralizable results.Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
ISSN
1065-9471 1097-0193
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.