Cited by 91Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

One size does not fit all: Methodological considerations for brain-based predictive modeling in psychiatry

Open access
Dhamala, Elvisha, Yeo, B.T. Thomas, Holmes, Avram J.·2023·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Psychiatric illnesses are heterogeneous in nature. No illness manifests in the same way across individuals, and no two patients with a shared diagnosis exhibit identical symptom profiles. Over the last several decades, group-level analyses of in vivo neuroimaging data have led to fundamental advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of psychiatric illnesses. More recently, access to computational resources and large, publicly available datasets alongside the rise of predictive modeling and precision medicine approaches have facilitated the study of psychiatric illnesses at an individual level. Data-driven machine learning analyses can be applied to identify disease-relevant biological subtypes, predict individual symptom profiles, and recommend personalized therapeutic interventions. However, when developing these predictive models, methodological choices must be carefully considered to ensure accurate, robust, and interpretable results. Choices pertaining to algorithms, neuroimaging modalities and states, data transformation, phenotypes, parcellations, sample sizes, and populations we are specifically studying can influence model performance. Here, we review applications of neuroimaging-based machine learning models to study psychiatric illnesses and discuss the effects of different methodological choices on model performance. An understanding of these effects is crucial for the proper implementation of predictive models in psychiatry and will facilitate more accurate diagnoses, prognoses, and therapeutics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.09.024

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dhamala, E., Yeo, B. T. T., & Holmes, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
  • Dhamala, Elvisha
  • Holmes, Avram J.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-04
Volume
93
Issue
8
Pages
717-728
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4298007405
Cited by
91
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation Singapore
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH120080, R01MH123245)
  • Naval Medical Research Center (OFLCG19May-0035, STaR20nov-0003)
  • NUS (NUHSRO/2020/124/TMR/LOA)
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
machine learning, neuroimaging, precision psychiatry, individual-level analysis, disease subtypes, symptom prediction, personalized treatment, model interpretability, methodological choices, neuroimaging modalities, brain parcellation, sample size
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Brain, Psychiatry, Precision Medicine, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review