↓ Skip to main content

Support Vector Machine Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Interoception Does Not Reliably Predict Individual Outcomes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Panic Disorder with…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Support Vector Machine Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Interoception Does Not Reliably Predict Individual Outcomes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benedikt Sundermann, Jens Bode, Ulrike Lueken, Dorte Westphal, Alexander L. Gerlach, Benjamin Straube, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, Andreas Ströhle, André Wittmann, Carsten Konrad, Tilo Kircher, Volker Arolt, Bettina Pfleiderer

Abstract

The approach to apply multivariate pattern analyses based on neuro imaging data for outcome prediction holds out the prospect to improve therapeutic decisions in mental disorders. Patients suffering from panic disorder with agoraphobia (PD/AG) often exhibit an increased perception of bodily sensations. The purpose of this investigation was to assess whether multivariate classification applied to a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) interoception paradigm can predict individual responses to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in PD/AG. This analysis is based on pretreatment fMRI data during an interoceptive challenge from a multicenter trial of the German PANIC-NET. Patients with DSM-IV PD/AG were dichotomized as responders (n = 30) or non-responders (n = 29) based on the primary outcome (Hamilton Anxiety Scale Reduction ≥50%) after 6 weeks of CBT (2 h/week). fMRI parametric maps were used as features for response classification with linear support vector machines (SVM) with or without automated feature selection. Predictive accuracies were assessed using cross validation and permutation testing. The influence of methodological parameters and the predictive ability for specific interoception-related symptom reduction were further evaluated. SVM did not reach sufficient overall predictive accuracies (38.0-54.2%) for anxiety reduction in the primary outcome. In the exploratory analyses, better accuracies (66.7%) were achieved for predicting interoception-specific symptom relief as an alternative outcome domain. Subtle information regarding this alternative response criterion but not the primary outcome was revealed by post hoc univariate comparisons. In contrast to reports on other neurofunctional probes, SVM based on an interoception paradigm was not able to reliably predict individual response to CBT. Results speak against the clinical applicability of this technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Professor 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 38 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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,921
of 10,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,774
of 317,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#58
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 317,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.