4.2 Review

Predicting the risk of psychosis onset: advances and prospects

期刊

EARLY INTERVENTION IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 368-379

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2012.00383.x

关键词

multivariate models; prediction; psychosis; schizophrenia; support vector machine

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32 GM008208]
  2. National Library of Medicine [HHSN276201000030C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To conduct a systematic review of the methods and performance characteristics of models developed for predicting the onset of psychosis. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search restricted to English articles and identified using PubMed, Medline and PsychINFO, as well as the reference lists of published studies and reviews. Inclusion criteria included the selection of more than one variable to predict psychosis or schizophrenia onset, and selection of individuals at familial risk or clinical high risk. Eighteen studies met these criteria, and we compared these studies based on the subjects selected, predictor variables used and the choice of statistical or machine learning methods. Results Quality of life and life functioning as well as structural brain imaging emerged as the most promising predictors of psychosis onset, particularly when they were coupled with appropriate dimensionality reduction methods and predictive model algorithms like the support vector machine (SVM). Balanced accuracy ranged from 100% to 78% in four studies using the SVM, and 67% to 81% in 14 studies using general linear models. Conclusions Performance of the predictive models improves with quality of life measures, life functioning measures, structural brain imaging data, as well as with the use of methods like SVM. Despite these advances, the overall performance of psychosis predictive models is still modest. In the future, performance can potentially be improved by including genetic variant and new functional imaging data in addition to the predictors that are used currently.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据