Future Psychology

Computational Psychiatry and Neuroscience: The Basics

Nina Stephan, Zoi Psarras, Georg Leistenschneider, Lukas Wiegmann | SE Computational Psychiatry and Neuroscience SoSe 22 | 05/05/2022
Outline

1. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - Cuthbert et al. (2013)

• The Aims of RDoC
• The Seven Pillars of RDoC
2. Computational Psychiatry - Huys et al. (2016)
• Data-driven approaches
• Theory-driven Approaches
3. Sources

5
Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis:
…the seven pillars of RDoC
Cuthbert et al. (2013)

6
1. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)
State of the art:
● current diagnostic systems: DSM-5 and ICD-11

Problem:
● reliance upon symptoms
● no reflection of neurobiological and behavioral mechanisms
● impediment of research on etiology and pathophysiology and development of
new treatments

7
1. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)
Controversy:
● effective treatments exist
● but: not precise and affect broad classes of disorders

Lack of progress:
● mortality
● prevalence rates
● clinical tests for diagnosis
● detection
● prevention

8
1. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)
Reasons for lack of progress:
● complex interactions of genetic factors and experience in respective environment
● brain can’t be studied directly
● current diagnostic systems for psychiatry impede progress

Problems:
● co-morbidity of disorders and heterogeneity
● validity of disease entities
→ no systematic understanding of pathology and no treatment directed at
mechanisms

9
1. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

The future: Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

● new project instituted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2009
● research classification system (rather than for routine clinical use)
● aims:
○ determine the exact nature of a patient’s disease
○ administer the optimal treatment
○ new classification of mental disorders based on observable behaviour and
neurobiological measures

10
1.1 The Aims of RDoC
Aim Task

1 identify the fundamental behavioral components (amenable to neuroscience approaches)

2 determine the full range of variation

3 develop reliable and valid measures

4 integrate the genetic, neurobiological, behavioral, environmental and experiential

components

11
 Neuroscientific

Dimensional

Valid

Coherent Design
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC

Integrative

Evidence based

Experimental
12
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 1

Transnational Research Perspective

● Neuroscience as starting point for disorder-definitions

13
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 2

Dimensional Approach
● Studying full range of variation

14
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 3

Developing Reliable and Valid Measures

● Higher sensitivity at ends of dimensions

15
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 4

Coherent Design
● Regarding design type and sampling strategies of all RDoC studies

16
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 5

Integrative Model
● Equal parts neuroscience and behavioural science

17
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 6

Constructs with Solid Evidence

● Does not (yet) include all psychopathology of DSM and ICD

18
1.2 The Seven Pillars of RDoC - Pillar 7

Experimental Classification System

● Not tied to classical disorder definition

19
link: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/constructs/arousal
20
1.2 Pro’s and Con’s

Potential Rewards Potential Risks

● Incorporate advances in research ● Changes to classification
(e.g. add/ modify/ delete (-systems) could prompt
constructs) disruptions regarding official
● Evidence based prevalence rates, insurance,
● Prevention (e.g. educate legal proceedings, declaration of
environment) disability, regulatory practice
● Heterogenität berücksichtigt ● Stigmatisation/ Preselection
● ● Datenschutz

22
2. Computational Psychiatry
… as a bridge from neuroscience to clinical applications
Huys et al. (2016)

23
2. Complexity as a challenge
• Mental diseases are complex
• → Interaction of multiple levels (molecules, cells, cognition, behavior,…)

• How can we uncover complex relations of (multi level) information?

• Promising approach: Computational psychiatry

• Data-driven approach (Machine Learning)
• Theory-driven approach (hypothesis about mechanism included)

24
 25
Quelle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATedpHnMpg0
2. What is Machine Learning?
Data Model
(e.g. neuroimaging, therapy outcomes) Algorithm (Prediction / Decision)
010101010111011000101001010
001010100100101010000001011
010111101010101010010010100
100101001010101011101100010
100101000101010010010101000
f (x)
000101101011110101010101001
001010010010100101011111010
1010011

• Aim: prediction/decision model

• Algorithm recognizes patterns and laws based on existing databases and algorithms
• Algorithm is not explicitly programmed

26
2.1 Data-driven approaches

Machine Learning can be useful:

1. Diagnostic classification

2. Prediction of treatment response

3. Treatment selection

27
2.1 Data-driven approaches
1. Diagnostic classification

• Machine Learning:
• Classification of patients vs. controls
• Schizophrenia: ML outperforms standard approaches in distinguishing patients and
controls using MRI-data

• Limitations
• Severity mostly not included – only Diagnosis: Yes/No
• Transfer to new data difficult (Overfitting)

28
2.1 Data-driven approaches
2. Prediction of treatment response

• Including more variables (e.g. alcoholism, live events, relationship parameters)

• Quantitative EEG markers (qEEG) in depressive patients

• Prediction: response to certain medication

29
2.1 Data-driven approaches
3. Treatment selection

• Which treatment will work best for a given patient?

• Approach: Looking for interactions of treatments and relevant variables (e.g.

neuroimaging data, marriage, life events,…)

• e.g., increased insula activity in depressive patients:

• Better response to CBT; worse response to escitalopram (SSRI, antidepressant)

30
2.2 Theory-driven approaches

1. Synthetic 2. Algorithmic 3. Bayesian

31
2.2 Synthetic Models

• linking biological abnormalities to

behavioural consequences
• 3D Models of brain structures
• Variation of certain characteristics
• often used in neurology

Source: Aberra et al. (2018)

32
2.2 Algorithmic Models

• Not as complex
• Mostly Reinforcement Learning
• Decision Making
• Behavioural constructs

Source: https://krados23.ru/index.php/post/pacman+30th+anniversary+download+for+pc

33
2.2 Bayesian Models

• including probability
• including uncertainty
• broadening the spectrum

34
3. Sources
• Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the
seven pillars of RDoC.
• Huys, Q. J. M., Maia, T. V., & Frank, M. J. (2016). Computational psychiatry as a
bridge from neuroscience to clinical applications. Nature Neuroscience (Vol. 19,
Issue 3, pp. 404–413). Nature Publishing Group.
• T. D. Sambrook, B. Hardwick, A. J. Wills, J. Goslin (2018). Model-free and
model-based reward prediction errors in EEG. NeuroImage (Vol. 178, pp. 162-171,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.023.
• Aberra, A. S., Peterchev, A. V., & Grill, W. M. (2018). Biophysically realistic neuron
models for simulation of cortical stimulation. Journal of neural engineering, 15(6),
066023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aadbb1
• https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/reinforcement-learning

37
“Computational tools [...] are frequently
opaque to the non-expert.”
Huys et al. (2016)

38
Appendix: Overfitting
• Problem: results will generalize poorly to new data (e.g., future subjects)
• How to handle overfitting
1. Unsupervised dimensionality reduction
• variables that are highly related provide little independent information
• 🡪 reducing the number of variables in preprocessing
2. Regularization
• More specific to the problem being solved
• Aim: limit the number of variables selected
• including a penalization term for too many predictors
3. Bayesian model evidence
• Same idea as regularization, but not on variable, but model level
• 🡪 penalization of excessively complex models
4. Cross-validation
• splitting the data set into two subsets: training data set & validation data set
39