Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T02:58:36.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Predicting long-term outcome in anorexia nervosa: a machine learning analysis of brain structure at different stages of weight recovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2023

Dominic Arold
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Fabio Bernardoni
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Daniel Geisler
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Arne Doose
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Volkan Uen
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Ilka Boehm
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Veit Roessner
Affiliation:
Eating Disorder Research and Treatment Center, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Joseph A. King
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Stefan Ehrlich*
Affiliation:
Translational Developmental Neuroscience Section, Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany Eating Disorder Research and Treatment Center, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Stefan Ehrlich; Email: stefan.ehrlich@uniklinikum-dresden.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is characterized by sizable, widespread gray matter (GM) reductions in the acutely underweight state. However, evidence for persistent alterations after weight-restoration has been surprisingly scarce despite high relapse rates, frequent transitions to other psychiatric disorders, and generally unfavorable outcome. While most studies investigated brain regions separately (univariate analysis), psychiatric disorders can be conceptualized as brain network disorders characterized by multivariate alterations with only subtle local effects. We tested for persistent multivariate structural brain alterations in weight-restored individuals with a history of AN, investigated their putative biological substrate and relation with 1-year treatment outcome.

Methods

We trained machine learning models on regional GM measures to classify healthy controls (HC) (N = 289) from individuals at three stages of AN: underweight patients starting intensive treatment (N = 165, used as baseline), patients after partial weight-restoration (N = 115), and former patients after stable and full weight-restoration (N = 89). Alterations after weight-restoration were related to treatment outcome and characterized both anatomically and functionally.

Results

Patients could be classified from HC when underweight (ROC-AUC = 0.90) but also after partial weight-restoration (ROC-AUC = 0.64). Alterations after partial weight-restoration were more pronounced in patients with worse outcome and were not detected in long-term weight-recovered individuals, i.e. those with favorable outcome. These alterations were more pronounced in regions with greater functional connectivity, not merely explained by body mass index, and even increases in cortical thickness were observed (insula, lateral orbitofrontal, temporal pole).

Conclusions

Analyzing persistent multivariate brain structural alterations after weight-restoration might help to develop personalized interventions after discharge from inpatient treatment.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Summary of study design. (a) Included samples in the study. Acute patients with AN were assessed at three time points: within 96 h of treatment initiation (acAN-TP1), after successful weight-restoration treatment occurring approximately 3 months later (acAN-TP2), and at a 1-year follow-up interview (acAN-TP3). Incomplete longitudinal assessment of acute patients occurred due to treatment discontinuation or insufficient BMI gain by the end of treatment, as well as loss of contact for long-term follow-up. Separate cross-sectional samples of long-term weight-recovered former patients (recAN) and healthy control participants (HC) were recruited. Brain MRI scans were acquired in all groups except acAN-TP3. (b) Analysis overview. Structural brain MRI data were processed and used to train machine learning classifiers to differentiate each AN group from HC. The presence of a disorder-related multivariate brain structural pattern in AN was determined through performance estimation using nested cross-validation (NCV), permutation tests, and post-hoc confound assessment. A trained classifier generates a machine learning-based risk score for each individual that provides a measure of how pronounced this pattern is. Given the unclear clinical trajectory of acAN after the initial weight-restoration treatment, we were particularly interested in whether the machine learning based risk score at TP2 was a predictor of long-term clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up (Morgan Russell score at TP3; ‘Long-term outcome prediction’). In an additional line of analyses aimed at interpreting the machine learning results (‘contextualization’), we used explainable AI and other techniques to elucidate the multivariate brain structure pattern found in acAN-TP2 and to investigate its possible biological substrate. (c) Scatter plot for long-term outcome prediction. The machine learning-based risk score in acAN-TP2 was a significant predictor of Morgan Russell outcome at 1-year follow-up, even when adjusting for BMI covariates (see main text for details).

Figure 1

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Figure 2

Figure 2. Visual comparison of the test performances achieved by the support vector machine classifiers. Test performance curves were estimated using (10 times repeated, 10-fold) nested cross-validation for acAN-TP1 (blue), acAN-TP2 (yellow), and recAN (green) v. HC classifications. The Precision-Recall (a) and corresponding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) (b) curves show test performance averages and s.d. ranges and provide an estimate for the performance of the model selection procedure (online Supplementary Methods 1.4). The dashed lines represent chance performance. Precision-Recall AUC was optimized during training. Since Precision is sensitive to group sizes, Precision-Recall curves are not comparable across classification tasks with different AN groups. Therefore, also the corresponding ROCs are shown. Permutation tests of the corresponding AUCs showed clear above-chance classification for acAN-TP1 and acAN-TP2 but not for recAN (online Supplementary Methods 1.6, Fig. S4).

Figure 3

Table 2. Deviance explained by ML-based risk scores and confounds

Figure 4

Figure 3. Feature importance analyses. The explainable AI results show the importance of each measure of brain structure (feature) for classification. Feature importance was defined as the Pearson correlation coefficient between each feature and the machine learning-based risk score (Haufe et al., 2014). More positive/negative values indicate that a larger/smaller value for a feature is characteristic of AN. (a) All feature importance values for the acAN-TP1 model (x-axis) compared to values for the acAN-TP2 model (y-axis). Feature importances for measures of cortical thickness (CT), volumes of subcortical gray matter (GM) regions, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) spaces are shown in blue, red, and orange, respectively. While most features are highly relevant for the classification acAN-TP1 v. HC, subcortical GM volumes lose relevance compared with CT and CSF spaces for the acAN-TP2 v. HC classification. (b) Features ranked by importance for the acAN-TP2 v. HC classification. Only features whose importance was significant after applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons are listed. The color code illustrates which were the most reliable features for classification. The reliability value is the percentage of cases in which the feature importance is significant across models trained on different subsamples of the entire data set (online Supplementary Methods 1.9). Features with a reliability >0.9 were the CT of superiorparietal, inferiorparietal, paracentral, left cuneus, and left postcentral regions (negatively signed importance), as well as CT of the insula and left temporal pole, and volumes of 3rd ventricle and total CSF space (positively signed importance). (c), (d) The same feature importance values for the acAN-TP1/TP2 model plotted on the surface of the standard average brain (Larivière et al., 2021). The color code illustrates the magnitude of negatively (blue) and positively (red) signed feature importance.

Supplementary material: File

Arold et al. supplementary material

Arold et al. supplementary material
Download Arold et al. supplementary material(File)
File 29.8 MB
Link
Supplementary material: File

Arold_et_al._Dataset

Dataset

Download Arold_et_al._Dataset(File)
File