Are Psychiatric Nosologies Limiting the Success of Clinical Prediction Models?

Isabelle Scott,Barnaby Nelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2662

2024-09-18

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses the limitations of clinical prediction models in psychiatric research.

psychiatry

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Illusory generalizability of clinical prediction models

Adam M Chekroud,Matt Hawrilenko,Hieronimus Loho,Julia Bondar,Ralitza Gueorguieva,Alkomiet Hasan,Joseph Kambeitz,Philip R Corlett,Nikolaos Koutsouleris,Harlan M Krumholz,John H Krystal,Martin Paulus,Adam M. Chekroud,Philip R. Corlett,Harlan M. Krumholz,John H. Krystal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg8538

IF: 56.9

2024-01-12

Science

Abstract:It is widely hoped that statistical models can improve decision-making related to medical treatments. Because of the cost and scarcity of medical outcomes data, this hope is typically based on investigators observing a model's success in one or two datasets or clinical contexts. We scrutinized this optimism by examining how well a machine learning model performed across several independent clinical trials of antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia. Models predicted patient outcomes with high accuracy within the trial in which the model was developed but performed no better than chance when applied out-of-sample. Pooling data across trials to predict outcomes in the trial left out did not improve predictions. These results suggest that models predicting treatment outcomes in schizophrenia are highly context-dependent and may have limited generalizability.

multidisciplinary sciences
Precision psychiatry: predicting predictability

Edwin van Dellen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291724000370

IF: 10.592

2024-03-20

Psychological Medicine

Abstract:Precision psychiatry is an emerging field that aims to provide individualized approaches to mental health care. An important strategy to achieve this precision is to reduce uncertainty about prognosis and treatment response. Multivariate analysis and machine learning are used to create outcome prediction models based on clinical data such as demographics, symptom assessments, genetic information, and brain imaging. While much emphasis has been placed on technical innovation, the complex and varied nature of mental health presents significant challenges to the successful implementation of these models. From this perspective, I review ten challenges in the field of precision psychiatry, including the need for studies on real-world populations and realistic clinical outcome definitions, and consideration of treatment-related factors such as placebo effects and non-adherence to prescriptions. Fairness, prospective validation in comparison to current practice and implementation studies of prediction models are other key issues that are currently understudied. A shift is proposed from retrospective studies based on linear and static concepts of disease towards prospective research that considers the importance of contextual factors and the dynamic and complex nature of mental health.

psychiatry,psychology, clinical
Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Psychotic Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Scoping Review

Jing Ling Tay,Kyawt Kyawt Htun,Kang Sim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14090878

IF: 3.333

2024-09-01

Brain Sciences

Abstract:Background: Psychotic disorders are major psychiatric disorders that can impact multiple domains including physical, social, and psychological functioning within individuals with these conditions. Being able to better predict the outcomes of psychotic disorders will allow clinicians to identify illness subgroups and optimize treatment strategies in a timely manner. Objective: In this scoping review, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods in predicting the clinical outcomes of patients with psychotic disorders as well as determine the relevant predictors of these outcomes. Methods: This review was guided by the PRISMA Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant published articles in English until 1 February 2024. Results: Thirty articles were included in this review. These studies were mainly conducted in the West (63%) and Asia (37%) and published within the last 5 years (83.3%). The clinical outcomes included symptomatic improvements, illness course, and social functioning. The machine learning models utilized data from various sources including clinical, cognitive, and biological variables such as genetic, neuroimaging measures. In terms of main machine learning models used, the most common approaches were support vector machine, random forest, logistic regression, and linear regression models. No specific machine learning approach outperformed the other approaches consistently across the studies, and an overall range of predictive accuracy was observed with an AUC from 0.58 to 0.95. Specific predictors of clinical outcomes included demographic characteristics (gender, socioeconomic status, accommodation, education, and employment); social factors (activity level and interpersonal relationships); illness features (number of relapses, duration of relapses, hospitalization rates, cognitive impairments, and negative and disorganization symptoms); treatment (prescription of first-generation antipsychotics, high antipsychotic doses, clozapine, use of electroconvulsive therapy, and presence of metabolic syndrome); and structural and functional neuroimaging abnormalities, especially involving the temporal and frontal brain regions. Conclusions: The current review highlights the potential and need to further refine AI and machine learning models in parsing out the complex interplay of specific variables that contribute to the clinical outcome prediction of psychotic disorders.

neurosciences
Precision psychiatry needs causal inference

Martin Bernstorff,Oskar Hougaard Jefsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2024.29

2024-10-18

Acta Neuropsychiatrica

Abstract:Objective: Psychiatric research applies statistical methods that can be divided in two frameworks: causal inference and prediction. Recent proposals suggest a down-prioritisation of causal inference and argue that prediction paves the road to 'precision psychiatry' (i.e., individualised treatment). In this perspective, we critically appraise these proposals. Methods: We outline strengths and weaknesses of causal inference and prediction frameworks and describe the link between clinical decision-making and counterfactual predictions (i.e., causality). We describe three key causal structures that, if not handled correctly, may cause erroneous interpretations, and three pitfalls in prediction research. Results: Prediction and causal inference are both needed in psychiatric research and their relative importance is context-dependent. When individualised treatment decisions are needed, causal inference is necessary. Conclusion: This perspective defends the importance of causal inference for precision psychiatry.

neurosciences,psychiatry
Suicide risk assessment tools and prediction models: new evidence, methodological innovations, outdated criticisms

Aida Seyedsalehi,Seena Fazel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-300990

2024-03-15

Evidence-Based Mental Health

Abstract:The number of prediction models for suicide-related outcomes has grown substantially in recent years. These models aim to assist in stratifying risk, improve clinical decision-making, and facilitate a personalised medicine approach to the prevention of suicidal behaviour. However, there are contrasting views as to whether prediction models have potential to inform and improve assessment of suicide risk. In this perspective, we discuss common misconceptions that characterise criticisms of suicide risk prediction research. First, we discuss the limitations of a classification approach to risk assessment (eg, categorising individuals as low-risk vs high-risk), and highlight the benefits of probability estimation. Second, we argue that the preoccupation with classification measures (such as positive predictive value) when assessing a model's predictive performance is inappropriate, and discuss the importance of clinical context in determining the most appropriate risk threshold for a given model. Third, we highlight that adequate discriminative ability for a prediction model depends on the clinical area, and emphasise the importance of calibration, which is almost entirely overlooked in the suicide risk prediction literature. Finally, we point out that conclusions about the clinical utility and health-economic value of suicide prediction models should be based on appropriate measures (such as net benefit and decision-analytic modelling), and highlight the role of impact assessment studies. We conclude that the discussion around using suicide prediction models and risk assessment tools requires more nuance and statistical expertise, and that guidelines and suicide prevention strategies should be informed by the new and higher quality evidence in the field.

psychiatry
Accurate Machine Learning Prediction in Psychiatry Needs the Right Kind of Information

Brian Kraus,Kruthika Sampathgiri,Vijay A. Mittal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4302

2023-11-29

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses the type and amount of data needed for machine learning models to accurately predict diagnoses and treatment outcomes at the individual patient level.

psychiatry
Predictive validity of psychosis risk models when applied to adolescent psychiatric patients

Maija Lindgren,Heidi Kuvaja,Markus Jokela,Sebastian Therman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721001938

Abstract:Background: Several multivariate algorithms have been developed for predicting psychosis, as attempts to obtain better prognosis prediction than with current clinical high-risk (CHR) criteria. The models have typically been based on samples from specialized clinics. We evaluated the generalizability of 19 prediction models to clinical practice in an unselected adolescent psychiatric sample. Methods: In total, 153 adolescent psychiatric patients in the Helsinki Prodromal Study underwent an extensive baseline assessment including the SIPS interview and a neurocognitive battery, with 50 participants (33%) fulfilling CHR criteria. The adolescents were followed up for 7 years using comprehensive national registers. Assessed outcomes were (1) any psychotic disorder diagnosis (n = 18, 12%) and (2) first psychiatric hospitalization (n = 25, 16%) as an index of overall deterioration of functioning. Results: Most models improved the overall prediction accuracy over standard CHR criteria (area under the curve estimates ranging between 0.51 and 0.82), although the accuracy was worse than that in the samples used to develop the models, also when applied only to the CHR subsample. The best models for transition to psychosis included the severity of positive symptoms, especially delusions, and negative symptoms. Exploratory models revealed baseline negative symptoms, low functioning, delusions, and sleep problems in combination to be the best predictor of psychiatric hospitalization in the upcoming years. Conclusions: Including the severity levels of both positive and negative symptomatology proved beneficial in predicting psychosis. Despite these advances, the applicability of extended psychosis-risk models to general psychiatric practice appears limited.
Clinical Prediction Models: Basic Concepts, Application Scenarios, and Research Strategies

Hongqiu Gu,Zhirui Zhou,Zhongheng Zhang,Quan Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-4055.2018.12.04

2018-01-01

Abstract:Clinical prediction models are mathematical equations that used to estimate the probability of having a disease or condition or the probability that an event will happen in the future.Clinical prediction models can be classified into diagnostic models or prognostic models based on the research question.Clinical predictive models are widely used in healthcare decision-making, healthcare quality management, and medical resource allocation.Procedures in clinical predictive model studies include the identification of the research question and the selection of the study design type, design and implementation, data management and quality control, model development and evaluation, validation, application and impact assessment, and updating of the model.
AI and mental health: evaluating supervised machine learning models trained on diagnostic classifications

Anna van Oosterzee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02012-z

2024-08-04

AI & Society

Abstract:Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool in psychiatry, revolutionising diagnostic processes and patient outcomes. In this paper, I argue that while ML studies show promising initial results, their application in mimicking clinician-based judgements presents inherent limitations (Shatte et al. in Psychol Med 49:1426–1448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719000151, 2019). Most models still rely on DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) categories, known for their heterogeneity and low predictive value. DSM's descriptive nature limits the validity of psychiatric diagnoses, which leads to overdiagnosis, comorbidity, and low remission rates. The application in psychiatry highlights the limitations of supervised ML techniques. Supervised ML models inherit the validity issues of their training data set. When the model's outcome is a DSM classification, this can never be more valid or predictive than the clinician's judgement. Therefore, I argue that these models have little added value to the patient. Moreover, the lack of known underlying causal pathways in psychiatric disorders prevents validating ML models based on such classifications. As such, I argue that high accuracy in these models is misleading when it is understood as validating the classification. In conclusion, these models will not will not offer any real benefit to patient outcomes. I propose a shift in focus, advocating for ML models to prioritise improving the predictability of prognosis, treatment selection, and prevention. Therefore, data selection and outcome variables should be geared towards this transdiagnostic goal. This way, ML can be leveraged to better support clinicians in personalised treatment strategies for mental health patients.
Causal blind spots when using prediction models for treatment decisions

Nan van Geloven,Ruth H Keogh,Wouter van Amsterdam,Giovanni Cinà,Jesse H. Krijthe,Niels Peek,Kim Luijken,Sara Magliacane,Paweł Morzywołek,Thijs van Ommen,Hein Putter,Matthew Sperrin,Junfeng Wang,Daniala L. Weir,Vanessa Didelez

2024-02-27

Abstract:Prediction models are increasingly proposed for guiding treatment decisions, but most fail to address the special role of treatments, leading to inappropriate use. This paper highlights the limitations of using standard prediction models for treatment decision support. We identify 'causal blind spots' in three common approaches to handling treatments in prediction modelling and illustrate potential harmful consequences in several medical applications. We advocate for an extension of guidelines for development, reporting, clinical evaluation and monitoring of prediction models to ensure that the intended use of the model is matched to an appropriate risk estimand. For decision support this requires a shift towards developing predictions under the specific treatment options under consideration ('predictions under interventions'). We argue that this will improve the efficacy of prediction models in guiding treatment decisions and prevent potential negative effects on patient outcomes.

Methodology
USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS TO FACILITATE PRECISION PSYCHIATRY

Dominic Oliver,Maite Arribas,Benjamin I Perry,Daniel Whiting,Graham Blackman,Kamil Krakowski,Aida Seyedsalehi,Emanuele F Osimo,Siân Lowri Griffiths,Daniel Stahl,Andrea Cipriani,Seena Fazel,Paolo Fusar-Poli,Philip McGuire,Benjamin I. Perry,Emanuele F. Osimo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.02.1006

IF: 12.81

2024-02-01

Biological Psychiatry

Abstract:The use of clinical prediction models to produce individualised risk estimates can facilitate the implementation of precision psychiatry. As a source of data from large, clinically representative patient samples, electronic health records (EHRs) provide a platform to develop and validate clinical prediction models, as well as potentially implementing them in routine clinical care. The present review describes promising use cases for the application of precision psychiatry to EHR data and considers their performance in terms of discrimination (ability to separate individuals with and without the outcome) and calibration (extent to which predicted risk estimates correspond to observed outcomes), as well as their potential clinical utility (weighing benefits and costs associated with the model compared to different approaches across different assumptions of the number-needed-to-test). We review four externally validated clinical prediction models designed to predict, respectively: psychosis onset, psychotic relapse, cardiometabolic morbidity, and suicide risk. We then discuss the prospects for clinically implementing these models, and the potential added value of integrating data from evidence syntheses, standardised psychometric assessments, and biological data into EHRs. Clinical prediction models can utilise routinely collected EHR data in an innovative way, representing a unique opportunity to inform real-world clinical decision making. Combining data from other sources (e.g. meta-analyses) or enhancing EHR data with information from research studies (clinical and biomarker data) may enhance our abilities to improve performance of clinical prediction models.

neurosciences,psychiatry
Clinical prediction models and the multiverse of madness

Richard D. Riley,Alexander Pate,Paula Dhiman,Lucinda Archer,Glen P. Martin,Gary S. Collins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03212-y

IF: 9.3

2023-12-18

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Each year, thousands of clinical prediction models are developed to make predictions (e.g. estimated risk) to inform individual diagnosis and prognosis in healthcare. However, most are not reliable for use in clinical practice. Main body We discuss how the creation of a prediction model (e.g. using regression or machine learning methods) is dependent on the sample and size of data used to develop it—were a different sample of the same size used from the same overarching population, the developed model could be very different even when the same model development methods are used. In other words, for each model created, there exists a multiverse of other potential models for that sample size and, crucially, an individual’s predicted value (e.g. estimated risk) may vary greatly across this multiverse. The more an individual’s prediction varies across the multiverse, the greater the instability. We show how small development datasets lead to more different models in the multiverse, often with vastly unstable individual predictions, and explain how this can be exposed by using bootstrapping and presenting instability plots. We recommend healthcare researchers seek to use large model development datasets to reduce instability concerns. This is especially important to ensure reliability across subgroups and improve model fairness in practice. Conclusions Instability is concerning as an individual’s predicted value is used to guide their counselling, resource prioritisation, and clinical decision making. If different samples lead to different models with very different predictions for the same individual, then this should cast doubt into using a particular model for that individual. Therefore, visualising, quantifying and reporting the instability in individual-level predictions is essential when proposing a new model.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation

Gary S Collins,Paula Dhiman,Jie Ma,Michael M Schlussel,Lucinda Archer,Ben Van Calster,Frank E Harrell,Jr,Glen P Martin,Karel G M Moons,Maarten van Smeden,Matthew Sperrin,Garrett S Bullock,Richard D Riley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-074819

2024-01-09

BMJ

Abstract:Healthcare decisions for individuals are routinely made on the basis of risk or probability.1 Whether this probability is that a specific outcome or disease is present (diagnostic) or that a specific outcome will occur in the future (prognostic), it is important to know how these probabilities are estimated and whether they are accurate. Clinical prediction models estimate outcome risk for an individual conditional on their characteristics of multiple predictors (eg, age, family history, symptoms, blood pressure). Examples include the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium) 4C model for estimating the risk of clinical deterioration in individuals with acute COVID-19,2 or the PREDICT model for estimating the overall and breast cancer specific survival probability at five years for women with early breast cancer.3 Clinical decision making can also be informed by models that estimate continuous outcome values, such as fat mass in children and adolescents, although we focus...

medicine, general & internal
The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry

Adam M Chekroud,Julia Bondar,Jaime Delgadillo,Gavin Doherty,Akash Wasil,Marjolein Fokkema,Zachary Cohen,Danielle Belgrave,Robert DeRubeis,Raquel Iniesta,Dominic Dwyer,Karmel Choi,Adam M. Chekroud

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20882

2021-05-18

World Psychiatry

Abstract:For many years, psychiatrists have tried to understand factors involved in response to medications or psychotherapies, in order to personalize their treatment choices. There is now a broad and growing interest in the idea that we can develop models to personalize treatment decisions using new statistical approaches from the field of machine learning and applying them to larger volumes of data. In this pursuit, there has been a paradigm shift away from experimental studies to confirm or refute specific hypotheses towards a focus on the overall explanatory power of a predictive model when tested on new, unseen datasets. In this paper, we review key studies using machine learning to predict treatment outcomes in psychiatry, ranging from medications and psychotherapies to digital interventions and neurobiological treatments. Next, we focus on some new sources of data that are being used for the development of predictive models based on machine learning, such as electronic health records, smartphone and social media data, and on the potential utility of data from genetics, electrophysiology, neuroimaging and cognitive testing. Finally, we discuss how far the field has come towards implementing prediction tools in real‐world clinical practice. Relatively few retrospective studies to‐date include appropriate external validation procedures, and there are even fewer prospective studies testing the clinical feasibility and effectiveness of predictive models. Applications of machine learning in psychiatry face some of the same ethical challenges posed by these techniques in other areas of medicine or computer science, which we discuss here. In short, machine learning is a nascent but important approach to improve the effectiveness of mental health care, and several prospective clinical studies suggest that it may be working already.

psychiatry
432. Success and Failure of Connectome-Based Prediction of Cognitive Functioning in Early Psychosis

Alexandra O'Neill,Melissa Pax,Jorge Sepulcre,Joan Camprodon,Daphne Holt,Stephanie Noble,Joshua Roffman,Hamdi Eryilmaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.02.931

IF: 12.81

2024-05-01

Biological Psychiatry

Abstract:Cognitive deficits in psychotic disorders are debilitating, treatment-resistant and predict long-term functional outcomes. It is important to characterize and predict such deficits in the early phase of illness, where treatments may be more effective. In this study, we aimed to predict cognitive functioning in individual patients with early psychosis using connectome-based predictive models (CPMs) and identify clinical and sociodemographic factors that may affect prediction accuracy.

neurosciences,psychiatry
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-09-11

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders ( ICD ) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5 ’s alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients’ actual problems. Conclusions and Relevance ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms–based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.

psychiatry
Generalizability of Clinical Prediction Models in Mental Health - Real-World Validation of Machine Learning Models for Depressive Symptom Prediction

Maike Richter,Daniel Emden,Ramona Leenings,Nils R. Winter,Rafael Mikolajczyk,Janka Massag,Esther Zwiky,Tiana Borgers,Ronny Redlich,Nikolaos Koutsouleris,Renata Falguera,Sharmili Edwin Thanarajah,Frank Padberg,Matthias A. Reinhard,Mitja D. Back,Nexhmedin Morina,Ulrike Buhlmann,Tilo Kircher,Udo Dannlowski,2107 consortium,PRONIA consortium,MBB consortium,Tim Hahn,Nils Opel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.04.24305250

2024-04-05

Abstract:Mental health research faces the challenge of developing machine learning models for clinical decision support. Concerns about the generalizability of such models to real-world populations due to sampling effects and disparities in available data sources are rising. We examined whether harmonized, structured collection of clinical data and stringent measures against overfitting can facilitate the generalization of machine learning models for predicting depressive symptoms across diverse real-world inpatient and outpatient samples. Despite systematic differences between samples, a sparse machine learning model trained on clinical information exhibited strong generalization across diverse real-world samples. These findings highlight the crucial role of standardized routine data collection, grounded in unified ontologies, in the development of generalizable machine learning models in mental health.

Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-11-01

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance: Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations: This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders (ICD) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5's alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients' actual problems. Conclusions and relevance: ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms-based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.
Psychosis superspectrum II: neurobiology, treatment, and implications

Roman Kotov,William T. Carpenter,David C. Cicero,Christoph U. Correll,Elizabeth A. Martin,Jared W. Young,David H. Zald,Katherine G. Jonas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02410-1

IF: 11

2024-02-14

Molecular Psychiatry

Abstract:Alternatives to traditional categorical diagnoses have been proposed to improve the validity and utility of psychiatric nosology. This paper continues the companion review of an alternative model, the psychosis superspectrum of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). The superspectrum model aims to describe psychosis-related psychopathology according to data on distributions and associations among signs and symptoms. The superspectrum includes psychoticism and detachment spectra as well as narrow subdimensions within them. Auxiliary domains of cognitive deficit and functional impairment complete the psychopathology profile. The current paper reviews evidence on this model from neurobiology, treatment response, clinical utility, and measure development. Neurobiology research suggests that psychopathology included in the superspectrum shows similar patterns of neural alterations. Treatment response often mirrors the hierarchy of the superspectrum with some treatments being efficacious for psychoticism, others for detachment, and others for a specific subdimension. Compared to traditional diagnostic systems, the quantitative nosology shows an approximately 2-fold increase in reliability, explanatory power, and prognostic accuracy. Clinicians consistently report that the quantitative nosology has more utility than traditional diagnoses, but studies of patients with frank psychosis are currently lacking. Validated measures are available to implement the superspectrum model in practice. The dimensional conceptualization of psychosis-related psychopathology has implications for research, clinical practice, and public health programs. For example, it encourages use of the cohort study design (rather than case-control), transdiagnostic treatment strategies, and selective prevention based on subclinical symptoms. These approaches are already used in the field, and the superspectrum provides further impetus and guidance for their implementation. Existing knowledge on this model is substantial, but significant gaps remain. We identify outstanding questions and propose testable hypotheses to guide further research. Overall, we predict that the more informative, reliable, and valid characterization of psychopathology offered by the superspectrum model will facilitate progress in research and clinical care.

biochemistry & molecular biology,neurosciences,psychiatry

Are Psychiatric Nosologies Limiting the Success of Clinical Prediction Models?

Illusory generalizability of clinical prediction models

Precision psychiatry: predicting predictability

Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Psychotic Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Scoping Review

Precision psychiatry needs causal inference

Suicide risk assessment tools and prediction models: new evidence, methodological innovations, outdated criticisms

Accurate Machine Learning Prediction in Psychiatry Needs the Right Kind of Information

Predictive validity of psychosis risk models when applied to adolescent psychiatric patients

Clinical Prediction Models: Basic Concepts, Application Scenarios, and Research Strategies

AI and mental health: evaluating supervised machine learning models trained on diagnostic classifications

Causal blind spots when using prediction models for treatment decisions

USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS TO FACILITATE PRECISION PSYCHIATRY

Clinical prediction models and the multiverse of madness

Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation

The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry

432. Success and Failure of Connectome-Based Prediction of Cognitive Functioning in Early Psychosis

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Generalizability of Clinical Prediction Models in Mental Health - Real-World Validation of Machine Learning Models for Depressive Symptom Prediction

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

Psychosis superspectrum II: neurobiology, treatment, and implications