↓ Skip to main content

Distinguishing Adolescents With Conduct Disorder From Typically Developing Youngsters Based on Pattern Classification of Brain Structural MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distinguishing Adolescents With Conduct Disorder From Typically Developing Youngsters Based on Pattern Classification of Brain Structural MRI
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianing Zhang, Weixiang Liu, Jing Zhang, Qiong Wu, Yidian Gao, Yali Jiang, Junling Gao, Shuqiao Yao, Bingsheng Huang

Abstract

Background: Conduct disorder (CD) is a mental disorder diagnosed in childhood or adolescence that presents antisocial behaviors, and is associated with structural alterations in brain. However, whether these structural alterations can distinguish CD from healthy controls (HCs) remains unknown. Here, we quantified these structural differences and explored the classification ability of these quantitative features based on machine learning (ML). Materials and Methods: High-resolution 3D structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) was acquired from 60 CD subjects and 60 age-matched HCs. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was used to assess the regional gray matter (GM) volume difference. The significantly different regional GM volumes were then extracted as features, and input into three ML classifiers: logistic regression, random forest and support vector machine (SVM). We trained and tested these ML models for classifying CD from HCs by using fivefold cross-validation (CV). Results: Eight brain regions with abnormal GM volumes were detected, which mainly distributed in the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, anterior cingulate, cerebellum posterior lobe, lingual gyrus, and insula areas. We found that these ML models achieved comparable classification performance, with accuracy of 77.9 ∼ 80.4%, specificity of 73.3 ∼ 80.4%, sensitivity of 75.4 ∼ 87.5%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.76 ∼ 0.80. Conclusion: Based on sMRI and ML, the regional GM volumes may be used as potential imaging biomarkers for stable and accurate classification of CD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Neuroscience 7 12%
Engineering 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2018.
All research outputs
#15,500,348
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,292
of 7,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,081
of 326,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#110
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.