Predictive utility of artificial intelligence on schizophrenia treatment outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105968
Reza Saboori Amleshi , Mehran Ilaghi , Masoud Rezaei , Moein Zangiabadian , Hossein Rezazadeh , Gregers Wegener , Shokouh Arjmand
{"title":"Predictive utility of artificial intelligence on schizophrenia treatment outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Reza Saboori Amleshi ,&nbsp;Mehran Ilaghi ,&nbsp;Masoud Rezaei ,&nbsp;Moein Zangiabadian ,&nbsp;Hossein Rezazadeh ,&nbsp;Gregers Wegener ,&nbsp;Shokouh Arjmand","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Identifying optimal treatment approaches for schizophrenia is challenging due to varying symptomatology and treatment responses. Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in predicting outcomes, prompting this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate various AI models' predictive utilities in schizophrenia treatment. A systematic search was conducted, and the risk of bias was evaluated. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95 % confidence intervals between AI models and the reference standard for response to treatment were assessed. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated, and subgroup analysis was performed based on the input data of AI models. Out of the 21 included studies, AI models achieved a pooled sensitivity of 70 % and specificity of 76 % in predicting schizophrenia treatment response with substantial predictive capacity and a near-to-high level of test accuracy. Subgroup analysis revealed EEG-based models to have the highest sensitivity (89 %) and specificity (94 %), followed by imaging-based models (76 % and 80 %, respectively). However, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies in treatment response definitions, participant characteristics, and therapeutic interventions. Despite methodological variations and small sample sizes in some modalities, this study underscores AI's predictive utility in schizophrenia treatment, offering insights for tailored approaches, improving adherence, and reducing relapse risk.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 105968"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763424004378","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying optimal treatment approaches for schizophrenia is challenging due to varying symptomatology and treatment responses. Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in predicting outcomes, prompting this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate various AI models' predictive utilities in schizophrenia treatment. A systematic search was conducted, and the risk of bias was evaluated. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95 % confidence intervals between AI models and the reference standard for response to treatment were assessed. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated, and subgroup analysis was performed based on the input data of AI models. Out of the 21 included studies, AI models achieved a pooled sensitivity of 70 % and specificity of 76 % in predicting schizophrenia treatment response with substantial predictive capacity and a near-to-high level of test accuracy. Subgroup analysis revealed EEG-based models to have the highest sensitivity (89 %) and specificity (94 %), followed by imaging-based models (76 % and 80 %, respectively). However, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies in treatment response definitions, participant characteristics, and therapeutic interventions. Despite methodological variations and small sample sizes in some modalities, this study underscores AI's predictive utility in schizophrenia treatment, offering insights for tailored approaches, improving adherence, and reducing relapse risk.
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
人工智能对精神分裂症治疗结果的预测效用:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
由于不同的症状和治疗反应,确定精神分裂症的最佳治疗方法具有挑战性。人工智能(AI)在预测结果方面显示出前景,促使本文进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估各种人工智能模型在精神分裂症治疗中的预测效用。进行了系统检索,并评估了偏倚风险。评估人工智能模型与治疗反应参考标准之间的综合敏感性、特异性和诊断优势比(置信区间为95% %)。计算诊断准确度指标,并根据AI模型输入数据进行亚组分析。在21项纳入的研究中,人工智能模型在预测精神分裂症治疗反应方面的总灵敏度为70 %,特异性为76 %,具有相当的预测能力和接近高水平的测试准确性。亚组分析显示,基于脑电图的模型灵敏度最高(89 %),特异性最高(94 %),其次是基于成像的模型(分别为76 %和80 %)。然而,在治疗反应定义、参与者特征和治疗干预措施方面,研究中观察到显著的异质性。尽管方法上存在差异,某些模式的样本量较小,但该研究强调了人工智能在精神分裂症治疗中的预测效用,为量身定制的方法、提高依从性和降低复发风险提供了见解。
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
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.
期刊最新文献
The involvement of brain norepinephrine nuclei in eating disorders Objective sleep markers to differentiate unipolar and bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive reserve moderates the effect of COVID-19 on cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Perceived stress in adults with epilepsy: A systematic review Causal relationship between B vitamins and neuropsychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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