Beyond Lumping and Splitting: A Review of Computational Approaches for Stratifying Psychiatric Disorders

Abstract

Heterogeneity is a key feature of all psychiatric disorders that manifests on many levels, including symptoms, disease course, and biological underpinnings. These form a substantial barrier to understanding disease mechanisms and developing effective, personalized treatments. In response, many studies have aimed to stratify psychiatric disorders, aiming to find more consistent subgroups on the basis of many types of data. Such approaches have received renewed interest after recent research initiatives, such as the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria and the European Roadmap for Mental Health Research, both of which emphasize finding stratifications that are based on biological systems and that cut across current classifications. We first introduce the basic concepts for stratifying psychiatric disorders and then provide a methodologically oriented and critical review of the existing literature. This shows that the predominant clustering approach that aims to subdivide clinical populations into more coherent subgroups has made a useful contribution but is heavily dependent on the type of data used; it has produced many different ways to subgroup the disorders we review, but for most disorders it has not converged on a consistent set of subgroups. We highlight problems with current approaches that are not widely recognized and discuss the importance of validation to ensure that the derived subgroups index clinically relevant variation. Finally, we review emerging techniques—such as those that estimate normative models for mappings between biology and behavior—that provide new ways to parse the heterogeneity underlying psychiatric disorders and evaluate all methods to meeting the objectives of such as the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria and Roadmap for Mental Health Research.

Single Subject Classification of Alzheimer’s Disease and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia Using Anatomical, Diffusion Tensor, and Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…It remains questionable whether any of these algorithms can fully capture the complexity of structural and functional dynamics of neurodegenerative processes underlying dementia. We speculate that other algorithms that utilize more sophisticated feature combination approaches, like sparse group lasso models [61], or hierarchical or longitudinal algorithms that aim to differentiate patients from a general population in order to subsequently differentiate between dementia-types may further exploit and weigh the additional information from multiple measures [64]. Incorporating other or additional imaging-derived biomarkers as cerebral blood flow [65], amplitude of low frequency fluctuations [32], GM derived connectomics [19], or diffusion tractography derived graph-based analytics [61] may further contribute to MRI-based dementiatype classification estimates without increasing diagnostic complexity.…”

Development of large-scale functional networks from birth to adulthood: A guide to the neuroimaging literature

“…For an excellent review of recent progress, as well as promises and pitfalls in this area, we direct the reader to (Marquand et al, 2016). Another related approach to tackling heterogeneity would be to focus on deviations from typical brain organization at the individual-subject level, rather than performing classical between-group analyses.…”

Pathways to Late-Life Suicidal Behavior

“…Providing external validation, there were between-cluster differences in the number and lethality of suicide attempts prior to baseline, and during the average 30-month follow-up period. Outcome prediction is the best test of classifications in psychiatry 47 .C-1 and C-3 had the highest proportions of subjects with one or more incident suicide attempts (31% and 20% respectively, one fatal in each) contrasted with only 3% of participants in C-2.…”