Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
In this issue of JAMA Psychiatry, Redlich et al1 assess the predictive potential of baseline (before electroconvulsive therapy [ECT]) structural neuroimaging with a set of machine-learning–based approaches. In the pre-ECT evaluation and consent process, the ECT health care professional must balance the anticipated benefits and risks for an individual patient. Ideally, the ECT health care professional would be able to accurately determine a patient’s likelihood of response based on demographics, symptom severity, phenomenology, and treatment history. A number of indices were created as early as 1950 based on clinical variables that included melancholia, family history, symptom severity, age, sex, and the presence of psychosis and personality disorders. Unfortunately, a recent meta-analysis of factors associated with ECT2 has shown that these clinical factors are imperfect. Only longer duration of symptoms and antidepressant treatment resistance are reliably associated with ECT nonresponse.
Abbott CC, Loo D, Sui J. Determining Electroconvulsive Therapy Response With Machine Learning. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(6):545–546. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0348
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.