↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Utility of Machine-Learning Approaches in Schizophrenia: Improving Diagnostic Confidence for Translational Neuroimaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical Utility of Machine-Learning Approaches in Schizophrenia: Improving Diagnostic Confidence for Translational Neuroimaging
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarina J. Iwabuchi, Peter F. Liddle, Lena Palaniyappan

Abstract

Machine-learning approaches are becoming commonplace in the neuroimaging literature as potential diagnostic and prognostic tools for the study of clinical populations. However, very few studies provide clinically informative measures to aid in decision-making and resource allocation. Head-to-head comparison of neuroimaging-based multivariate classifiers is an essential first step to promote translation of these tools to clinical practice. We systematically evaluated the classifier performance using back-to-back structural MRI in two field strengths (3- and 7-T) to discriminate patients with schizophrenia (n = 19) from healthy controls (n = 20). Gray matter (GM) and white matter images were used as inputs into a support vector machine to classify patients and control subjects. Seven Tesla classifiers outperformed the 3-T classifiers with accuracy reaching as high as 77% for the 7-T GM classifier compared to 66.6% for the 3-T GM classifier. Furthermore, diagnostic odds ratio (a measure that is not affected by variations in sample characteristics) and number needed to predict (a measure based on Bayesian certainty of a test result) indicated superior performance of the 7-T classifiers, whereby for each correct diagnosis made, the number of patients that need to be examined using the 7-T GM classifier was one less than the number that need to be examined if a different classifier was used. Using a hypothetical example, we highlight how these findings could have significant implications for clinical decision-making. We encourage the reporting of measures proposed here in future studies utilizing machine-learning approaches. This will not only promote the search for an optimum diagnostic tool but also aid in the translation of neuroimaging to clinical use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 95 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 21%
Psychology 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Computer Science 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 22 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,893,979
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#4,273
of 9,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,407
of 280,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#112
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.