生态瞬间评估(EMA)与无监督机器学习相结合,显示出识别可能需要进行精神病评估的个体的灵敏度。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-16 DOI:10.1007/s00406-023-01668-w
Julian Wenzel, Nils Dreschke, Esther Hanssen, Marlene Rosen, Andrej Ilankovic, Joseph Kambeitz, Anne-Kathrin Fett, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic
{"title":"生态瞬间评估(EMA)与无监督机器学习相结合,显示出识别可能需要进行精神病评估的个体的灵敏度。","authors":"Julian Wenzel, Nils Dreschke, Esther Hanssen, Marlene Rosen, Andrej Ilankovic, Joseph Kambeitz, Anne-Kathrin Fett, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic","doi":"10.1007/s00406-023-01668-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a structured diary assessment technique, has shown feasibility to capture psychotic(-like) symptoms across different study groups. We investigated whether EMA combined with unsupervised machine learning can distinguish groups on the continuum of genetic risk toward psychotic illness and identify individuals with need for extended healthcare. Individuals with psychotic disorder (PD, N = 55), healthy individuals (HC, N = 25) and HC with first-degree relatives with psychosis (RE, N = 20) were assessed at two sites over 7 days using EMA. Cluster analysis determined subgroups based on similarities in longitudinal trajectories of psychotic symptom ratings in EMA, agnostic of study group assignment. Psychotic symptom ratings were calculated as average of items related to hallucinations and paranoid ideas. Prior to EMA we assessed symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience (CAPE) to characterize the EMA subgroups. We identified two clusters with distinct longitudinal EMA characteristics. Cluster 1 (N<sub>PD</sub> = 12, N<sub>RE</sub> = 1, N<sub>HC</sub> = 2) showed higher mean EMA symptom ratings as compared to cluster 2 (N<sub>PD</sub> = 43, N<sub>RE</sub> = 19, N<sub>HC</sub> = 23) (p < 0.001). Cluster 1 showed a higher burden on negative (p < 0.05) and positive (p < 0.05) psychotic symptoms in cross-sectional PANSS and CAPE ratings than cluster 2. Findings indicate a separation of PD with high symptom burden (cluster 1) from PD with healthy-like rating patterns grouping together with HC and RE (cluster 2). Individuals in cluster 1 might particularly profit from exchange with a clinician underlining the idea of EMA as clinical monitoring tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":11822,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"1639-1649"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11422424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) combined with unsupervised machine learning shows sensitivity to identify individuals in potential need for psychiatric assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Julian Wenzel, Nils Dreschke, Esther Hanssen, Marlene Rosen, Andrej Ilankovic, Joseph Kambeitz, Anne-Kathrin Fett, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00406-023-01668-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a structured diary assessment technique, has shown feasibility to capture psychotic(-like) symptoms across different study groups. We investigated whether EMA combined with unsupervised machine learning can distinguish groups on the continuum of genetic risk toward psychotic illness and identify individuals with need for extended healthcare. Individuals with psychotic disorder (PD, N = 55), healthy individuals (HC, N = 25) and HC with first-degree relatives with psychosis (RE, N = 20) were assessed at two sites over 7 days using EMA. Cluster analysis determined subgroups based on similarities in longitudinal trajectories of psychotic symptom ratings in EMA, agnostic of study group assignment. Psychotic symptom ratings were calculated as average of items related to hallucinations and paranoid ideas. Prior to EMA we assessed symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience (CAPE) to characterize the EMA subgroups. We identified two clusters with distinct longitudinal EMA characteristics. Cluster 1 (N<sub>PD</sub> = 12, N<sub>RE</sub> = 1, N<sub>HC</sub> = 2) showed higher mean EMA symptom ratings as compared to cluster 2 (N<sub>PD</sub> = 43, N<sub>RE</sub> = 19, N<sub>HC</sub> = 23) (p < 0.001). Cluster 1 showed a higher burden on negative (p < 0.05) and positive (p < 0.05) psychotic symptoms in cross-sectional PANSS and CAPE ratings than cluster 2. Findings indicate a separation of PD with high symptom burden (cluster 1) from PD with healthy-like rating patterns grouping together with HC and RE (cluster 2). Individuals in cluster 1 might particularly profit from exchange with a clinician underlining the idea of EMA as clinical monitoring tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1639-1649\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11422424/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-023-01668-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-023-01668-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生态瞬间评估(EMA)是一种结构化日记评估技术,在不同研究小组中捕捉精神病(类似)症状的可行性已得到证实。我们研究了 EMA 与无监督机器学习相结合能否区分精神病遗传风险连续体上的群体,并识别出需要扩展医疗保健的个体。我们在两个地点使用 EMA 对精神病患者(PD,55 人)、健康人(HC,25 人)和一级亲属中有精神病患者的健康人(RE,20 人)进行了为期 7 天的评估。聚类分析根据 EMA 中精神病症状评级的纵向轨迹的相似性确定亚组,与研究组分配无关。精神病症状评分按幻觉和妄想相关项目的平均值计算。在 EMA 之前,我们使用阳性与阴性综合征量表 (PANSS) 和精神体验社区评估 (CAPE) 对症状进行了评估,以确定 EMA 亚组的特征。我们确定了两个具有明显纵向 EMA 特征的群组。与第 2 组(NPD = 43,NRE = 19,NHC = 23)相比,第 1 组(NPD = 12,NRE = 1,NHC = 2)显示出更高的 EMA 症状平均评级(P<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) combined with unsupervised machine learning shows sensitivity to identify individuals in potential need for psychiatric assessment.

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a structured diary assessment technique, has shown feasibility to capture psychotic(-like) symptoms across different study groups. We investigated whether EMA combined with unsupervised machine learning can distinguish groups on the continuum of genetic risk toward psychotic illness and identify individuals with need for extended healthcare. Individuals with psychotic disorder (PD, N = 55), healthy individuals (HC, N = 25) and HC with first-degree relatives with psychosis (RE, N = 20) were assessed at two sites over 7 days using EMA. Cluster analysis determined subgroups based on similarities in longitudinal trajectories of psychotic symptom ratings in EMA, agnostic of study group assignment. Psychotic symptom ratings were calculated as average of items related to hallucinations and paranoid ideas. Prior to EMA we assessed symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience (CAPE) to characterize the EMA subgroups. We identified two clusters with distinct longitudinal EMA characteristics. Cluster 1 (NPD = 12, NRE = 1, NHC = 2) showed higher mean EMA symptom ratings as compared to cluster 2 (NPD = 43, NRE = 19, NHC = 23) (p < 0.001). Cluster 1 showed a higher burden on negative (p < 0.05) and positive (p < 0.05) psychotic symptoms in cross-sectional PANSS and CAPE ratings than cluster 2. Findings indicate a separation of PD with high symptom burden (cluster 1) from PD with healthy-like rating patterns grouping together with HC and RE (cluster 2). Individuals in cluster 1 might particularly profit from exchange with a clinician underlining the idea of EMA as clinical monitoring tool.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The original papers published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience deal with all aspects of psychiatry and related clinical neuroscience. Clinical psychiatry, psychopathology, epidemiology as well as brain imaging, neuropathological, neurophysiological, neurochemical and moleculargenetic studies of psychiatric disorders are among the topics covered. Thus both the clinician and the neuroscientist are provided with a handy source of information on important scientific developments.
期刊最新文献
Associations between cerebellum and major psychiatric disorders: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Memory deficits in children and adolescents with a psychotic disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Suicidal ideation among medical and surgical inpatients at South Gondar Public Hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023: a multicenter institution-based cross-sectional study. Correspondence: Neuropsychiatric post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. Memory loss in patients with long COVID can be due to reduced hippocampal neurogenesis.
×
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