Methodological choices and clinical usefulness for machine learning predictions of outcome in Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy

IF 5.4 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Communications medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1038/s43856-024-00626-4
Nils Hentati Isacsson, Fehmi Ben Abdesslem, Erik Forsell, Magnus Boman, Viktor Kaldo
{"title":"Methodological choices and clinical usefulness for machine learning predictions of outcome in Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy","authors":"Nils Hentati Isacsson, Fehmi Ben Abdesslem, Erik Forsell, Magnus Boman, Viktor Kaldo","doi":"10.1038/s43856-024-00626-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While psychological treatments are effective, a substantial portion of patients do not benefit enough. Early identification of those may allow for adaptive treatment strategies and improved outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of machine-learning (ML) models predicting outcomes in Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, to compare ML-related methodological choices, and guide future use of these. Eighty main models were compared. Baseline variables, weekly symptoms, and treatment activity were used to predict treatment outcomes in a dataset of 6695 patients from regular care. We show that the best models use handpicked predictors and impute missing data. No ML algorithm shows clear superiority. They have a mean balanced accuracy of 78.1% at treatment week four, closely matched by regression (77.8%). ML surpasses the benchmark for clinical usefulness (67%). Advanced and simple models perform equally, indicating a need for more data or smarter methodological designs to confirm advantages of ML. While there are many therapy treatments that are effective for mental health problems some patients don’t benefit enough. Predicting whom might need more help can guide therapists to adjust treatments for better results. Computer methods are increasingly used for predicting the outcome of treatment, but studies vary widely in accuracy and methodology. We examined a variety of models to test performance. Those examined were based on a several factors: what data is chosen, how the data is managed, as well as type of mathematical equations and function used for prediction. When used on ~6500 patients, none of the computer methods tested stood out as the best. Simple models were as accurate as more advanced. Accuracy of prediction of treatment outcome was good enough to inform clinicians’ decisions, suggesting they may still be useful tools in mental health care. Hentati Isacsson et al. investigate and compare several data preprocessing and machine learning approaches to predict treatment outcomes in internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy. Despite indications that no algorithm or method examined shows clear superiority, results still suggest promise for clinical implementations.","PeriodicalId":72646,"journal":{"name":"Communications medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11464669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-024-00626-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While psychological treatments are effective, a substantial portion of patients do not benefit enough. Early identification of those may allow for adaptive treatment strategies and improved outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of machine-learning (ML) models predicting outcomes in Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, to compare ML-related methodological choices, and guide future use of these. Eighty main models were compared. Baseline variables, weekly symptoms, and treatment activity were used to predict treatment outcomes in a dataset of 6695 patients from regular care. We show that the best models use handpicked predictors and impute missing data. No ML algorithm shows clear superiority. They have a mean balanced accuracy of 78.1% at treatment week four, closely matched by regression (77.8%). ML surpasses the benchmark for clinical usefulness (67%). Advanced and simple models perform equally, indicating a need for more data or smarter methodological designs to confirm advantages of ML. While there are many therapy treatments that are effective for mental health problems some patients don’t benefit enough. Predicting whom might need more help can guide therapists to adjust treatments for better results. Computer methods are increasingly used for predicting the outcome of treatment, but studies vary widely in accuracy and methodology. We examined a variety of models to test performance. Those examined were based on a several factors: what data is chosen, how the data is managed, as well as type of mathematical equations and function used for prediction. When used on ~6500 patients, none of the computer methods tested stood out as the best. Simple models were as accurate as more advanced. Accuracy of prediction of treatment outcome was good enough to inform clinicians’ decisions, suggesting they may still be useful tools in mental health care. Hentati Isacsson et al. investigate and compare several data preprocessing and machine learning approaches to predict treatment outcomes in internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy. Despite indications that no algorithm or method examined shows clear superiority, results still suggest promise for clinical implementations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于互联网的认知行为疗法中机器学习预测结果的方法选择和临床实用性。
背景:虽然心理治疗很有效,但相当一部分患者并没有从中获得足够的益处。及早发现这些患者,可以采取适应性治疗策略,改善治疗效果。我们旨在评估机器学习(ML)模型预测基于互联网的认知行为疗法结果的临床实用性,比较与 ML 相关的方法选择,并指导这些模型的未来使用:比较了 80 个主要模型。基线变量、每周症状和治疗活动用于预测6695名常规护理患者数据集的治疗结果:结果:我们发现,最好的模型是使用手工挑选的预测因子并对缺失数据进行补偿。没有一种 ML 算法显示出明显的优越性。它们在治疗第四周的平均平衡准确率为 78.1%,与回归法(77.8%)相差无几:结论:ML 超过了临床实用性基准(67%)。高级模型和简单模型表现相当,这表明需要更多的数据或更智能的方法设计来证实 ML 的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Early nasal microbiota and subsequent respiratory tract infections in infants with cystic fibrosis Deep reinforcement learning extracts the optimal sepsis treatment policy from treatment records Morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 in the evolution to endemicity and in comparison with influenza A retrospective two-center cohort study of the bidirectional relationship between depression and tinnitus-related distress Accurate patient alignment without unnecessary imaging using patient-specific 3D CT images synthesized from 2D kV images
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1