We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Group-level results suggest that relative to healthy controls (HCs), ultra-high-risk (UHR) and first-episode psychosis (FEP) subjects show alterations in neuroanatomy, neurofunction and cognition that may be mediated genetically. It is unclear, however, whether these groups can be differentiated at single-subject level, for instance using the machine learning analysis support vector machine (SVM). Here, we used a multimodal approach to examine the ability of structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), functional MRI (fMRI), diffusion tensor neuroimaging (DTI), genetic and cognitive data to differentiate between UHR, FEP and HC subjects at the single-subject level using SVM.
Method
Three age- and gender-matched SVM paired comparison groups were created comprising 19, 19 and 15 subject pairs for FEP versus HC, UHR versus HC and FEP versus UHR, respectively. Genetic, sMRI, DTI, fMRI and cognitive data were obtained for each participant and the ability of each to discriminate subjects at the individual level in conjunction with SVM was tested.
Results
Successful classification accuracies (p < 0.05) comprised FEP versus HC (genotype, 67.86%; DTI, 65.79%; fMRI, 65.79% and 68.42%; cognitive data, 73.69%), UHR versus HC (sMRI, 68.42%; DTI, 65.79%), and FEP versus UHR (sMRI, 76.67%; fMRI, 73.33%; cognitive data, 66.67%).
Conclusions
The results suggest that FEP subjects are identifiable at the individual level using a range of biological and cognitive measures. Comparatively, only sMRI and DTI allowed discrimination of UHR from HC subjects. For the first time FEP and UHR subjects have been shown to be directly differentiable at the single-subject level using cognitive, sMRI and fMRI data. Preliminarily, the results support clinical development of SVM to help inform identification of FEP and UHR subjects, though future work is needed to provide enhanced levels of accuracy.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.