Using deep learning to predict internalizing problems from brain structure in youth
Vandewouw, M. M.; Syed, B.; Barnett, N.; Arias, A.; Kelley, E.; Jones, J.; Ayub, M.; Iaboni, A.; Arnold, P. D.; Crosbie, J.; Schachar, R. J.; Taylor, M. J.; Lerch, J. P.; Anagnostou, E.; Kushki, A.
Show abstract
Internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes. While some predictors of internalizing problems are known (e.g., their frequent co-occurrence with neurodevelopmental (ND) conditions), the biological markers of internalizing problems are not well understood. Here, we used deep learning, a powerful tool for identifying complex and multi-dimensional brain-behaviour relationships, to predict cross-sectional and worsening longitudinal trajectories of internalizing problems. Data were extracted from four large-scale datasets: the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the Healthy Brain Network, the Human Connectome Project Development study, and the Province of Ontario Neurodevelopmental network. We developed deep learning models that used measures of brain structure (thickness, surface area, and volume) to (a) predict clinically significant internalizing problems cross-sectionally (N=14,523); and (b) predict subsequent worsening trajectories (using the reliable change index) of internalizing problems (N=10,540) longitudinally. A stratified cross-validation scheme was used to tune, train, and test the models, which were evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC). The cross-sectional model performed well across the sample, reaching an AUC of 0.80[95% CI: 0.71,0.88]. For the longitudinal model, while performance was sub-optimal for predicting worsening trajectories in a sample of the general population (AUC=0.66[0.65,0.67]), good performance was achieved in a small, external test set of primarily ND conditions (AUC=0.80[0.78,0.81]), as well as across all ND conditions (AUC=0.73[0.70,0.76]). Deep learning with features of brain structure is a promising avenue for biomarkers of internalizing problems, particularly for individuals who have a higher likelihood of experiencing difficulties.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Change in Striatal Functional Connectivity Networks Across Two Years Due to Stimulant Exposure in Childhood ADHD: Results from the ABCD Sample 93%
- Testing relationships between multimodal modes of brain structural variation and age, sex and polygenic scores for neuroticism in children and adolescents 93%
- Transdiagnostic dimensions of psychopathology explain individuals' unique deviations from normative neurodevelopment in brain structure 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Regional brain age deviations reveal divergent developmental pathways in youth 95%
- Brain structure and function show distinct relations with genetic predispositions to mental health and cognition 94%
- Manifold learning uncovers nonlinear interactions between the adolescent brain and environment that predict emotional and behavioral problems 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Effects of Adverse Life Events on Brain Development in the ABCD Study®: A Propensity-weighted Analysis 94%
- Cross-disorder comparison of Brain Structures among 4,842 Individuals with Mental Disorders and Controls utilizing Danish population-based Clinical MRI Scans 94%
- Neuroimaging profiling identifies distinct brain maturational subtypes of youth with mood and anxiety disorders 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Neuroimaging Insights into Brain Mechanisms of Early-onset Restrictive Eating Disorders 95%
- Prenatal cannabis exposure is associated with localized brain differences that partially mediate associations with increased adolescent psychopathology 94%
- Mapping Cerebellar Anatomical Heterogeneity in Mental and Neurological Illnesses 93%
"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.