The normative modeling framework for computational psychiatry

Saige Rutherford, Seyed Mostafa Kia, Thomas Wolfers, Charlotte Fraza, Mariam Zabihi, Richard Dinga, Pierre Berthet, Amanda Worker, Serena Verdi, Henricus G. Ruhe, Christian F. Beckmann, Andre F. Marquand

Published: 2022-05-31 DOI: 10.1038/s41596-022-00696-5

normative modeling

computational psychiatry

PCNtoolkit

biological heterogeneity

statistical inferences

AI 解读

Fabrication of angstrom-scale two-dimensional channels for mass transport

Efficient and strand-specific profiling of replicating chromatin with enrichment and sequencing of protein-associated nascent DNA in mammalian cells

The eINTACT method for studying nuclear changes in host plant cells targeted by bacterial effectors in native infection contexts

Rapid reaction optimization by robust and economical quantitative benchtop19F NMR spectroscopy

Profiling native pulmonary basement membrane stiffness using atomic force microscopy

Photoimmunotechnology as a powerful biological tool for molecular-based elimination of target cells and microbes, including bacteria, fungi and viruses

Measuring key human carbohydrate digestive enzyme activities using high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection

Neural cell isolation from adult macaques for high-throughput analyses and neurosphere cultures

Preparation, validation and use of a vasoactive tryptophan-derived hydroperoxide and relevant control compounds

Neuronal subtype-specific growth cone and soma purification from mammalian CNS via fractionation and fluorescent sorting for subcellular analyses and spatial mapping of local transcriptomes and proteomes

查看全部

Sections

Figures

References

Normative modeling is an emerging and innovative framework for mapping individual differences at the level of a single subject or observation in relation to a reference model. It involves charting centiles of variation across a population in terms of mapp
Introduction
Materials
- Equipment
Procedure
Troubleshooting
Timing
Anticipated results
References
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Guo, C., Kang, J. & Johnson, T. D. A spatial Bayesian latent factor model for image-on-image regression. Biometrics https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13420 (2020).
Woolrich, M. W., Behrens, T. E. J. & Smith, S. M. Constrained linear basis sets for HRF modelling using variational Bayes. Neuroimage 21, 1748–1761 (2004).
Wang, D. et al. Parcellating cortical functional networks in individuals. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1853–1860 (2015).
Finn, E. S. & Constable, R. T. Individual variation in functional brain connectivity: implications for personalized approaches to psychiatric disease. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 18, 277–287 (2016).
Braga, R. M. & Buckner, R. L. Parallel interdigitated distributed networks within the individual estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Neuron 95, 457–471 (2017).
Poldrack, R. A. Precision neuroscience: dense sampling of individual brains. Neuron 95, 727–729 (2017).
Vanderwal, T. et al. Individual differences in functional connectivity during naturalistic viewing conditions. Neuroimage 157, 521–530 (2017).
Braun, U. et al. From maps to multi-dimensional network mechanisms of mental disorders. Neuron 97, 14–31 (2018).
Gratton, C. et al. Defining individual-specific functional neuroanatomy for precision psychiatry. Biol. Psychiatry 88, 28–39 (2020).
Hyman, S. E. Can neuroscience be integrated into the DSM-V? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 725–732 (2007).
Insel, T. et al. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 167, 748–751 (2010).
Michelini, G., Palumbo, I. M., DeYoung, C. G., Latzman, R. D. & Kotov, R. Linking RDoC and HiTOP: a new interface for advancing psychiatric nosology and neuroscience. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 86, 102025 (2021).
Narrow, W. E. & Kuhl, E. A. Dimensional approaches to psychiatric diagnosis in DSM-5. J. Ment. Health Policy Econ. 14, 197–200 (2011).
Cuthbert, B. N. & Insel, T. R. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 11, 126 (2013).
Sanislow, C. A. RDoC at 10: changing the discourse for psychopathology. World Psychiatry 19, 311–312 (2020).
Kotov, R. et al. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126, 454–477 (2017).
Kotov, R. et al. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a quantitative nosology based on consensus of evidence. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 17, 081219–093304 (2021).
Haro, J. M. et al. ROAMER: roadmap for mental health research in Europe. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 23, 1–14 (2014).
Schumann, G. et al. Stratified medicine for mental disorders. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 24, 5–50 (2014).
Feczko, E. et al. The heterogeneity problem: approaches to identify psychiatric subtypes. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 584–601 (2019).
Shen, X. et al. Using connectome-based predictive modeling to predict individual behavior from brain connectivity. Nat. Protoc. 12, 506–518 (2017).
Sripada, C. et al. Basic units of inter-individual variation in resting state connectomes. Sci. Rep. 9, 1900 (2019).
Woo, C.-W., Chang, L. J., Lindquist, M. A. & Wager, T. D. Building better biomarkers: brain models in translational neuroimaging. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 365–377 (2017).
Marquand, A. F. et al. Conceptualizing mental disorders as deviations from normative functioning. Mol. Psychiatry 24, 1415–1424 (2019).
Gau, R. et al. Brainhack: developing a culture of open, inclusive, community-driven neuroscience. Neuron 109, 1769–1775 (2021).
Olah, C. & Carter, S. Research debt. Distill 2, e5 (2017).
Fraza, C. J., Dinga, R., Beckmann, C. F. & Marquand, A. F. Warped Bayesian linear regression for normative modelling of big data. Neuroimage 245, 118715 (2021).
Dinga, R. et al. Normative modeling of neuroimaging data using generalized additive models of location scale and shape. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.14.448106 (2021).
Kia, S. M. et al. Hierarchical Bayesian regression for multi-site normative modeling of neuroimaging data. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2020 (eds. Martel, A. L. et al.) 699–709 (Springer International, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59728-3_68
Kia, S. M. et al. Federated multi-site normative modeling using hierarchical Bayesian regression. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.28.446120 (2021).
Floris, D. L. et al. Atypical brain asymmetry in autism—a candidate for clinically meaningful stratification. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.08.008 (2020).
Zabihi, M. et al. Dissecting the heterogeneous cortical anatomy of autism spectrum disorder using normative models. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 4, 567–578 (2019).
Zabihi, M. et al. Fractionating autism based on neuroanatomical normative modeling. Transl. Psychiatry 10, 1–10 (2020).
Wolfers, T. et al. Individual differences v. the average patient: mapping the heterogeneity in ADHD using normative models. Psychol. Med. 50, 314–323 (2020).
Wolfers, T. et al. Refinement by integration: aggregated effects of multimodal imaging markers on adult ADHD. J. Psychiatry Neurosci. 42, 386–394 (2017).
Verdi, S., Marquand, A. F., Schott, J. M. & Cole, J. H. Beyond the average patient: how neuroimaging models can address heterogeneity in dementia. Brain https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab165 (2021).
Wolfers, T. et al. Replicating extensive brain structural heterogeneity in individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Human Brain Mapp. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25386 (2020).
Wolfers, T. et al. Mapping the heterogeneous phenotype of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder using normative models. JAMA Psychiatry 75, 1146–1155 (2018).
Wolfers, T. et al. Replicating extensive brain structural heterogeneity in individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Hum. Brain Mapp. 42, 2546–2555 (2021).
Sripada, C., Angstadt, M., Rutherford, S. & Taxali, A. Brain network mechanisms of general intelligence. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/657205 (2019).
Sripada, C. et al. Brain Connectivity Patterns in Children Linked to Neurocognitive Abilities. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.10.291500 (2020).
Rosenberg, M. D. et al. A neuromarker of sustained attention from whole-brain functional connectivity. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 165–171 (2015).
Rosenberg, M. D. et al. Functional connectivity predicts changes in attention observed across minutes, days, and months. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3797–3807 (2020).
Marquand, A. F., Haak, K. V. & Beckmann, C. F. Functional corticostriatal connection topographies predict goal directed behaviour in humans. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0146 (2017).
Marquand, A. et al. Quantitative prediction of subjective pain intensity from whole-brain fMRI data using Gaussian processes. Neuroimage 49, 2178–2189 (2010).
Wager, T. D. et al. An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1388–1397 (2013).
Sripada, C., Angstadt, M., Rutherford, S., Taxali, A. & Shedden, K. Toward a “treadmill test” for cognition: improved prediction of general cognitive ability from the task activated brain. Hum. Brain Mapp. 41, 3186–3197 (2020).
Taxali, A., Angstadt, M., Rutherford, S. & Sripada, C. Boost in test–retest reliability in resting state fMRI with predictive modeling. Cereb. Cortex 31, 2822–2833 (2021).
Finn, E. S. et al. Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1664–1671 (2015).
Wang, H.-T. et al. Finding the needle in a high-dimensional haystack: canonical correlation analysis for neuroscientists. Neuroimage 216, 116745 (2020).
Smith, S. M. et al. A positive-negative mode of population covariation links brain connectivity, demographics and behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1565–1567 (2015).
Dadi, K. et al. Benchmarking functional connectome-based predictive models for resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage 192, 115–134 (2019).
Lake, E. M. R. et al. The functional brain organization of an individual allows prediction of measures of social abilities transdiagnostically in autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol. Psychiatry 86, 315–326 (2019).
Cole, J. H. & Franke, K. Predicting age using neuroimaging: innovative brain ageing biomarkers. Trends Neurosci. 40, 681–690 (2017).
Han, L. K. M. et al. Brain aging in major depressive disorder: results from the ENIGMA major depressive disorder working group. Mol. Psychiatry 26, 5124–5139 (2021).
Sturmfels, P. et al. A domain guided CNN architecture for predicting age from structural brain images. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.04362 (2018).
Alfaro-Almagro, F. et al. Image processing and quality control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank. Neuroimage 166, 400–424 (2018).
Donders, A. R. T., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., Stijnen, T. & Moons, K. G. M. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59, 1087–1091 (2006).
Madley-Dowd, P., Hughes, R., Tilling, K. & Heron, J. The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 110, 63–73 (2019).
Burt, J. B., Helmer, M., Shinn, M., Anticevic, A. & Murray, J. D. Generative modeling of brain maps with spatial autocorrelation. Neuroimage 220, 117038 (2020).
Shinn, M. et al. Spatial and temporal autocorrelation weave human brain networks. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.446561 (2021).
Smith, S. M. & Nichols, T. E. Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference. Neuroimage 44, 83–98 (2009).
Liu, W., Zhu, P., Anderson, J. S., Yurgelun-Todd, D. & Fletcher, P. T. Spatial regularization of functional connectivity using high-dimensional Markov random fields. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 13, 363–370 (2010).
Song, H. F., Kennedy, H. & Wang, X.-J. Spatial embedding of structural similarity in the cerebral cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16580–16585 (2014).
Roberts, J. A. et al. The contribution of geometry to the human connectome. Neuroimage 124, 379–393 (2016).
Bijsterbosch, J. et al. Challenges and future directions for representations of functional brain organization. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 1484–1495 (2020).
Huertas, I. et al. A Bayesian spatial model for neuroimaging data based on biologically informed basis functions. Neuroimage 161, 134–148 (2017).
Kia, S. M. & Marquand, A. Normative modeling of neuroimaging data using scalable multi-task Gaussian processes. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.01047 (2018).
Kia, S. M., Beckmann, C. F. & Marquand, A. F. Scalable multi-task Gaussian process tensor regression for normative modeling of structured variation in neuroimaging data. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.00036 (2018).
Jahn, A. et al. Andy’s Brain Book https://andysbrainbook.readthedocs.io/en/latest (2020).
Casey, B. J. et al. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 43–54 (2018).
Thompson, P. M. et al. ENIGMA and global neuroscience: a decade of large-scale studies of the brain in health and disease across more than 40 countries. Transl. Psychiatry 10, 100 (2020).
Beer, J. C. et al. Longitudinal ComBat: a method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data. Neuroimage 220, 117129 (2020).
Fortin, J.-P. et al. Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data. Neuroimage 161, 149–170 (2017).
Fortin, J.-P. et al. Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage 167, 104–120 (2018).
Johnson, W. E., Li, C. & Rabinovic, A. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8, 118–127 (2007).
Nygaard, V., Rødland, E. A. & Hovig, E. Methods that remove batch effects while retaining group differences may lead to exaggerated confidence in downstream analyses. Biostatistics 17, 29–39 (2016).
Noirhomme, Q. et al. Biased binomial assessment of cross-validated estimation of classification accuracies illustrated in diagnosis predictions. Neuroimage Clin. 4, 687–694 (2014).
Marquand, A. F., Wolfers, T., Mennes, M., Buitelaar, J. & Beckmann, C. F. Beyond lumping and splitting: a review of computational approaches for stratifying psychiatric disorders. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 1, 433–447 (2016).
Rahimi, A. & Recht, B. Random features for large-scale kernel machines. In NIPS'07: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 1177–1184 (2007).
Lv, J. et al. Individual deviations from normative models of brain structure in a large cross-sectional schizophrenia cohort. Mol. Psychiatry 26, 3512–3523 (2021).
Snelson, E., Ghahramani, Z. & Rasmussen, C. Warped Gaussian processes. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems vol. 16 (MIT Press, 2004).
Hensman, J., Fusi, N. & Lawrence, N. D. Gaussian processes for big data. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.6835 (2013).
Bethlehem, R. et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y (2022).
Rutherford, S. et al. Charting brain growth and aging at high spatial precision. eLife 11, e72904 (2022).
Rutherford, S. et al. The Normative Modeling Framework for Computational Psychiatry (Zenodo, 2021); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5592153

The normative modeling framework for computational psychiatry

Supplementary information

推荐阅读