Back

Explainable Machine Learning Analysis Reveals Gender Differences in the Phenotypic and Neurobiological Markers of Cannabis Use Disorder

Niklason, G.; Rawls, E.; Ma, S.; Kummerfeld, E.; Maxwell, A. M.; Brucar, L. R.; Drossel, G.; Zilverstand, A.

2021-09-01 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.08.30.458245 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCannabis Use Disorder (CUD) has been linked to environmental, personality, mental health, neurocognitive and neurobiological risk factors. While many studies have revealed gender differences in CUD, the relative importance of these complex factors by gender has not been described. MethodsWe conducted a data-driven examination of gender differences in CUD in a community sample of young adults (Human Connectome Project [HCP]; n = 1204, 54% female). We employed state-of-the-art machine learning methods [gradient tree boosting, XGBoost] in combination with novel factor ranking tools [SHapleys Additive exPlanations (SHAP)] as an explainable machine learning approach in the multimodal data collected by the HCP (phenotypic and brain data). ResultsWe were able to successfully classify both cannabis dependence and cannabis use levels. Previously identified environmental, personality, mental health, neurocognitive, and brain factors highly contributed to the classification. Predominantly-male risk factors included personality (high openness), mental health (high externalizing, high childhood conduct disorder, high fear somaticism), neurocognitive (impulsive delay discounting, slow working memory performance) and brain (low hippocampal volume) factors. Conversely, predominantly-female risk factors included environmental (low education level, low instrumental support) factors. ConclusionsOur data-driven analysis of gender differences in the multimodal risk factors underlying cannabis dependence and use levels demonstrate that environmental factors contribute more strongly to CUD in women, whereas individual factors such as personality, mental health and neurocognitive factors have a larger importance in men. This warrants further investigations, and suggests the importance of understanding how these differences relate to the development of effective treatment approaches.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.