3 results
Economic Evaluation Approaches in the Field of Disaster Health Management
- Sanaz Sohrabizadeh, Fahimeh Shojaei, Luis Möckel, Nader Jahanmehr, Armin Zandi, Hamid Soori, Seyed Saeed Hashemi Nazari
-
- Journal:
- Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 17 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 July 2023, e442
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background:
Economic evaluation approaches are needed to establish useful interventions for saving lives, preventing economic damage, and saving recovery costs at the time of disasters. Thus, the present study is aimed to identify the studies that applied economic evaluation approaches/methods for evaluating the economic costs of disasters.
Methods:A scoping review was conducted to find the eligible studies and perform a comprehensive data analysis.
Results:Based on the findings, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic loss assessment, modeling, or mapping, as well as behavioral economic analysis were used as the economic evaluation approaches/methods.
Conclusions:Applying economic evaluation approaches to illustrate the economic costs of disasters is highly recommended. Managing competing priorities and optimizing resources allocations to the most cost-effective interventions can be achieved by cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of economic loss assessment can be used as the basis of disaster preparedness and response planning. Economic modeling can be applied to compare different interventions and anticipate socio-economic effects of disasters. A behavioral economic approach can be effective for decision-making in the field of disaster health management. Further research is needed to identify the advantages and limitations of each economic evaluation method/approach in the field of health in disasters. Such research can preferably be designed as the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Using polygenic scores and clinical data for bipolar disorder patient stratification and lithium response prediction: machine learning approach – CORRIGENDUM
- Micah Cearns, Azmeraw T. Amare, Klaus Oliver Schubert, Anbupalam Thalamuthu, Joseph Frank, Fabian Streit, Mazda Adli, Nirmala Akula, Kazufumi Akiyama, Raffaella Ardau, Bárbara Arias, JeanMichel Aubry, Lena Backlund, Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Frank Bellivier, Antonio Benabarre, Susanne Bengesser, Joanna M. Biernacka, Armin Birner, Clara Brichant-Petitjean, Pablo Cervantes, HsiChung Chen, Caterina Chillotti, Sven Cichon, Cristiana Cruceanu, Piotr M. Czerski, Nina Dalkner, Alexandre Dayer, Franziska Degenhardt, Maria Del Zompo, J. Raymond DePaulo, Bruno Étain, Peter Falkai, Andreas J. Forstner, Louise Frisen, Mark A. Frye, Janice M. Fullerton, Sébastien Gard, Julie S. Garnham, Fernando S. Goes, Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Paul Grof, Ryota Hashimoto, Joanna Hauser, Urs Heilbronner, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Andrea Hofmann, Liping Hou, Yi-Hsiang Hsu, Stephane Jamain, Esther Jiménez, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Layla Kassem, Po-Hsiu Kuo, Tadafumi Kato, John Kelsoe, Sarah Kittel-Schneider, Sebastian Kliwicki, Barbara König, Ichiro Kusumi, Gonzalo Laje, Mikael Landén, Catharina Lavebratt, Marion Leboyer, Susan G. Leckband, Mario Maj, the Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Mirko Manchia, Lina Martinsson, Michael J. McCarthy, Susan McElroy, Francesc Colom, Marina Mitjans, Francis M. Mondimore, Palmiero Monteleone, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Markus M. Nöthen, Tomas Novák, Claire O'Donovan, Norio Ozaki, Vincent Millischer, Sergi Papiol, Andrea Pfennig, Claudia Pisanu, James B. Potash, Andreas Reif, Eva Reininghaus, Guy A. Rouleau, Janusz K. Rybakowski, Martin Schalling, Peter R. Schofield, Barbara W. Schweizer, Giovanni Severino, Tatyana Shekhtman, Paul D. Shilling, Katzutaka Shimoda, Christian Simhandl, Claire M. Slaney, Alessio Squassina, Thomas Stamm, Pavla Stopkova, Fasil TekolaAyele, Alfonso Tortorella, Gustavo Turecki, Julia Veeh, Eduard Vieta, Stephanie H. Witt, Gloria Roberts, Peter P. Zandi, Martin Alda, Michael Bauer, Francis J. McMahon, Philip B. Mitchell, Thomas G. Schulze, Marcella Rietschel, Scott R. Clark, Bernhard T. Baune
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 221 / Issue 2 / August 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 May 2022, p. 494
- Print publication:
- August 2022
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
Using polygenic scores and clinical data for bipolar disorder patient stratification and lithium response prediction: machine learning approach
- Micah Cearns, Azmeraw T. Amare, Klaus Oliver Schubert, Anbupalam Thalamuthu, Joseph Frank, Fabian Streit, Mazda Adli, Nirmala Akula, Kazufumi Akiyama, Raffaella Ardau, Bárbara Arias, Jean-Michel Aubry, Lena Backlund, Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Frank Bellivier, Antonio Benabarre, Susanne Bengesser, Joanna M. Biernacka, Armin Birner, Clara Brichant-Petitjean, Pablo Cervantes, Hsi-Chung Chen, Caterina Chillotti, Sven Cichon, Cristiana Cruceanu, Piotr M. Czerski, Nina Dalkner, Alexandre Dayer, Franziska Degenhardt, Maria Del Zompo, J. Raymond DePaulo, Bruno Étain, Peter Falkai, Andreas J. Forstner, Louise Frisen, Mark A. Frye, Janice M. Fullerton, Sébastien Gard, Julie S. Garnham, Fernando S. Goes, Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Paul Grof, Ryota Hashimoto, Joanna Hauser, Urs Heilbronner, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Andrea Hofmann, Liping Hou, Yi-Hsiang Hsu, Stephane Jamain, Esther Jiménez, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Layla Kassem, Po-Hsiu Kuo, Tadafumi Kato, John Kelsoe, Sarah Kittel-Schneider, Sebastian Kliwicki, Barbara König, Ichiro Kusumi, Gonzalo Laje, Mikael Landén, Catharina Lavebratt, Marion Leboyer, Susan G. Leckband, Mario Maj, the Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Mirko Manchia, Lina Martinsson, Michael J. McCarthy, Susan McElroy, Francesc Colom, Marina Mitjans, Francis M. Mondimore, Palmiero Monteleone, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Markus M. Nöthen, Tomas Novák, Claire O'Donovan, Norio Ozaki, Vincent Millischer, Sergi Papiol, Andrea Pfennig, Claudia Pisanu, James B. Potash, Andreas Reif, Eva Reininghaus, Guy A. Rouleau, Janusz K. Rybakowski, Martin Schalling, Peter R. Schofield, Barbara W. Schweizer, Giovanni Severino, Tatyana Shekhtman, Paul D. Shilling, Katzutaka Shimoda, Christian Simhandl, Claire M. Slaney, Alessio Squassina, Thomas Stamm, Pavla Stopkova, Fasil Tekola-Ayele, Alfonso Tortorella, Gustavo Turecki, Julia Veeh, Eduard Vieta, Stephanie H. Witt, Gloria Roberts, Peter P. Zandi, Martin Alda, Michael Bauer, Francis J. McMahon, Philip B. Mitchell, Thomas G. Schulze, Marcella Rietschel, Scott R. Clark, Bernhard T. Baune
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 220 / Issue 4 / April 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 February 2022, pp. 219-228
- Print publication:
- April 2022
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment.
AimsTo use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder.
MethodThis study utilised genetic and clinical data (n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi+Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework.
ResultsThe best performing linear model explained 5.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% (P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data.
ConclusionsUsing PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)