Deep learning models for diagnosing mood disorders using integrated MRI and genetic data


Abstract

Background: Brain disorders are conditions that affect brain structure, function, or chemistry, causing various symptoms and impairments. Brain disorders are categorized into neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, which involve progressive neuron degeneration; mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia; and traumatic brain injuries caused by external force resulting in temporary or permanent brain damage. Mood disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD), are frequently underdiagnosed, contributing to significant clinical burden. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel computational framework that leverages multimodal data integration by combining patient-specific structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) with whole-exome sequencing (WES) data.
Methods: Our dataset consisted of brain imaging and genetic data from 321 East Asian individuals, including 147 diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), 78 with bipolar disorder (BD), and 96 healthy controls. In addition, we used child brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for external validation.
We initially prepared and preprocessed our data for the adult dataset. We then loaded SNP data from a CSV file, normalized the features, and preprocessed MRI images stored in NIFTI format by resizing and augmenting them. Various deep learning models (e.g., InceptionV3, ResNet) were then employed to extract features from MRI data. SNP characteristics were extracted from the preprocessed genetic data. We aligned the number of samples in the SNP and MRI feature sets, concatenated these features to form a combined feature set, and normalized the combined features.
Results: Combined features are input into machine learning classifiers (e.g., Support Vector Machine [SVM], K Nearest Neighbours) for final classification with the best accuracy of 74.2% on a linear SVM classifier for detection of mood disorders. Further, we considered two more results, with the second being the classification of the child brain MRI dataset into abnormal and normal categories, achieving an exceptional accuracy of 99.8% on the cubic SVM classifier.
Conclusion: Our approach can support the diagnostic evaluation of psychiatric patients by providing the incorporation of additional neuroimaging modalities and genomic information into routine clinical workflows.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].