Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical psychology review 2022-11, Vol.97, p.102193-102193, Article 102193
Hauptverfasser: Vieira, Sandra, Liang, Xinyi, Guiomar, Raquel, Mechelli, Andrea
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 102193
container_issue
container_start_page 102193
container_title Clinical psychology review
container_volume 97
creator Vieira, Sandra
Liang, Xinyi
Guiomar, Raquel
Mechelli, Andrea
description Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will and will not benefit from CBT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used machine learning to predict clinical response to CBT. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate an overall performance accuracy across all studies. Twenty-four studies (N = 7497) were identified, covering five diagnostic groups: Major Depressive Disorder (k = 4), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD, k = 5), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (k = 2), Anxiety Disorders (AD, k = 7), Substance Use Disorders (k = 4) and two transdiagnostic models. Studies used clinical, neuroimaging, cognitive and genetic data, or a combination of these, as predictors. The overall performance accuracy across studies was 74.0% [70.0–77.8]. Accuracies differed significantly between diagnostic groups and was highest in PTSD (78.7%, 69.1–87.0), AD (77.6%, 67.5–86.4) and OCD (76.1%, 67.3–84.0). Some studies were at a high risk of bias due to how the outcome was operationalised and/or how the analyses were conducted/reported. There are many challenges to overcome before these promising results can be applied to real-world clinical practice. •First meta-analytic review of machine learning studies predicting response to CBT.•24 studies, totalling 7497 patients and six diagnostic groups were included.•Clinical and neuroimaging data were the most common predictors.•Classifiers distinguished responders/non-responders with a pooled accuracy of 74.0%.•Sample size and type of predictor variables were significant moderators.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2705749891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0272735822000782</els_id><sourcerecordid>2705749891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-bcf8fb9af03056e824409d29849e0728f42063ec06241c56a103e34239ea57c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90M9qGzEQBnBRGqib9AFy07GXdUfS_tHSQwmmaQOBXNqzGGtHscyutJVkGz9A3ztr3HNPw8D3DcyPsXsBawGi_bJf2zmtJUi57FL06h1bCd2pqtNCvGcrkJ2sOtXoD-xjznsAELoWK_Z3g4GfiM-JBm8LP-0iP_lx5FsK5HzhLsWJ2_gafPFHqra0w6OPh4QjLztKOJ-_8Qeez7nQhMVbnujo6cQxDHyighUGHM_ZZx4dn9DufCA-EqbgwyvP5TB4ynfsxuGY6dO_ect-P37_tflZPb_8eNo8PFdWgSrV1jrttj06UNC0pGVdQz_IXtc9QSe1qyW0iiy0sha2aVGAIlVL1RM2nRXqln2-3p1T_HOgXMzks6VxxEDxkI3soOnqXveXqLhGbYo5J3JmTn7CdDYCzIXc7M1Cbi7k5kq-dL5eO7T8sCgkk62nYBfaRLaYIfr_tN8AeKaKwA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2705749891</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Vieira, Sandra ; Liang, Xinyi ; Guiomar, Raquel ; Mechelli, Andrea</creator><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Sandra ; Liang, Xinyi ; Guiomar, Raquel ; Mechelli, Andrea</creatorcontrib><description>Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will and will not benefit from CBT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used machine learning to predict clinical response to CBT. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate an overall performance accuracy across all studies. Twenty-four studies (N = 7497) were identified, covering five diagnostic groups: Major Depressive Disorder (k = 4), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD, k = 5), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (k = 2), Anxiety Disorders (AD, k = 7), Substance Use Disorders (k = 4) and two transdiagnostic models. Studies used clinical, neuroimaging, cognitive and genetic data, or a combination of these, as predictors. The overall performance accuracy across studies was 74.0% [70.0–77.8]. Accuracies differed significantly between diagnostic groups and was highest in PTSD (78.7%, 69.1–87.0), AD (77.6%, 67.5–86.4) and OCD (76.1%, 67.3–84.0). Some studies were at a high risk of bias due to how the outcome was operationalised and/or how the analyses were conducted/reported. There are many challenges to overcome before these promising results can be applied to real-world clinical practice. •First meta-analytic review of machine learning studies predicting response to CBT.•24 studies, totalling 7497 patients and six diagnostic groups were included.•Clinical and neuroimaging data were the most common predictors.•Classifiers distinguished responders/non-responders with a pooled accuracy of 74.0%.•Sample size and type of predictor variables were significant moderators.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-7358</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7811</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Cognitive-behavioural therapy ; Machine learning ; meta-analysis</subject><ispartof>Clinical psychology review, 2022-11, Vol.97, p.102193-102193, Article 102193</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-bcf8fb9af03056e824409d29849e0728f42063ec06241c56a103e34239ea57c13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-bcf8fb9af03056e824409d29849e0728f42063ec06241c56a103e34239ea57c13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Sandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Xinyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guiomar, Raquel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mechelli, Andrea</creatorcontrib><title>Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies</title><title>Clinical psychology review</title><description>Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will and will not benefit from CBT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used machine learning to predict clinical response to CBT. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate an overall performance accuracy across all studies. Twenty-four studies (N = 7497) were identified, covering five diagnostic groups: Major Depressive Disorder (k = 4), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD, k = 5), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (k = 2), Anxiety Disorders (AD, k = 7), Substance Use Disorders (k = 4) and two transdiagnostic models. Studies used clinical, neuroimaging, cognitive and genetic data, or a combination of these, as predictors. The overall performance accuracy across studies was 74.0% [70.0–77.8]. Accuracies differed significantly between diagnostic groups and was highest in PTSD (78.7%, 69.1–87.0), AD (77.6%, 67.5–86.4) and OCD (76.1%, 67.3–84.0). Some studies were at a high risk of bias due to how the outcome was operationalised and/or how the analyses were conducted/reported. There are many challenges to overcome before these promising results can be applied to real-world clinical practice. •First meta-analytic review of machine learning studies predicting response to CBT.•24 studies, totalling 7497 patients and six diagnostic groups were included.•Clinical and neuroimaging data were the most common predictors.•Classifiers distinguished responders/non-responders with a pooled accuracy of 74.0%.•Sample size and type of predictor variables were significant moderators.</description><subject>Cognitive-behavioural therapy</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>meta-analysis</subject><issn>0272-7358</issn><issn>1873-7811</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90M9qGzEQBnBRGqib9AFy07GXdUfS_tHSQwmmaQOBXNqzGGtHscyutJVkGz9A3ztr3HNPw8D3DcyPsXsBawGi_bJf2zmtJUi57FL06h1bCd2pqtNCvGcrkJ2sOtXoD-xjznsAELoWK_Z3g4GfiM-JBm8LP-0iP_lx5FsK5HzhLsWJ2_gafPFHqra0w6OPh4QjLztKOJ-_8Qeez7nQhMVbnujo6cQxDHyighUGHM_ZZx4dn9DufCA-EqbgwyvP5TB4ynfsxuGY6dO_ect-P37_tflZPb_8eNo8PFdWgSrV1jrttj06UNC0pGVdQz_IXtc9QSe1qyW0iiy0sha2aVGAIlVL1RM2nRXqln2-3p1T_HOgXMzks6VxxEDxkI3soOnqXveXqLhGbYo5J3JmTn7CdDYCzIXc7M1Cbi7k5kq-dL5eO7T8sCgkk62nYBfaRLaYIfr_tN8AeKaKwA</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Vieira, Sandra</creator><creator>Liang, Xinyi</creator><creator>Guiomar, Raquel</creator><creator>Mechelli, Andrea</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies</title><author>Vieira, Sandra ; Liang, Xinyi ; Guiomar, Raquel ; Mechelli, Andrea</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-bcf8fb9af03056e824409d29849e0728f42063ec06241c56a103e34239ea57c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Cognitive-behavioural therapy</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>meta-analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Sandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Xinyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guiomar, Raquel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mechelli, Andrea</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical psychology review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vieira, Sandra</au><au>Liang, Xinyi</au><au>Guiomar, Raquel</au><au>Mechelli, Andrea</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies</atitle><jtitle>Clinical psychology review</jtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>97</volume><spage>102193</spage><epage>102193</epage><pages>102193-102193</pages><artnum>102193</artnum><issn>0272-7358</issn><eissn>1873-7811</eissn><abstract>Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will and will not benefit from CBT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used machine learning to predict clinical response to CBT. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate an overall performance accuracy across all studies. Twenty-four studies (N = 7497) were identified, covering five diagnostic groups: Major Depressive Disorder (k = 4), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD, k = 5), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (k = 2), Anxiety Disorders (AD, k = 7), Substance Use Disorders (k = 4) and two transdiagnostic models. Studies used clinical, neuroimaging, cognitive and genetic data, or a combination of these, as predictors. The overall performance accuracy across studies was 74.0% [70.0–77.8]. Accuracies differed significantly between diagnostic groups and was highest in PTSD (78.7%, 69.1–87.0), AD (77.6%, 67.5–86.4) and OCD (76.1%, 67.3–84.0). Some studies were at a high risk of bias due to how the outcome was operationalised and/or how the analyses were conducted/reported. There are many challenges to overcome before these promising results can be applied to real-world clinical practice. •First meta-analytic review of machine learning studies predicting response to CBT.•24 studies, totalling 7497 patients and six diagnostic groups were included.•Clinical and neuroimaging data were the most common predictors.•Classifiers distinguished responders/non-responders with a pooled accuracy of 74.0%.•Sample size and type of predictor variables were significant moderators.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-7358
ispartof Clinical psychology review, 2022-11, Vol.97, p.102193-102193, Article 102193
issn 0272-7358
1873-7811
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2705749891
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Cognitive-behavioural therapy
Machine learning
meta-analysis
title Can we predict who will benefit from cognitive-behavioural therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning studies
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T20%3A58%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20we%20predict%20who%20will%20benefit%20from%20cognitive-behavioural%20therapy?%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20of%20machine%20learning%20studies&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20psychology%20review&rft.au=Vieira,%20Sandra&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=97&rft.spage=102193&rft.epage=102193&rft.pages=102193-102193&rft.artnum=102193&rft.issn=0272-7358&rft.eissn=1873-7811&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2705749891%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2705749891&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0272735822000782&rfr_iscdi=true