T223. MULTIVARIATE PREDICTION OF FOLLOW UP SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL OUTCOME IN CLINICAL HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS BASED ON GRAY MATTER VOLUMES AND HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVERSE EVENTS
Authors: Antonucci Linda , Pigoni Alessandro , Sanfelici Rachele , Kambeitz-Ilankovic Lana , Dwyer Dominic , Ruef Anne , Chisholm Katharine , Haidl Theresa , Rosen Marlene , Kambeitz Joseph , Ruhrmann Stephan , Schultze-Lutter Frauke , Falkai Peter , Lencer Rebekka , Dannlowski Udo , Upthegrove Rachel , Salokangas Raimo , Pantelis Christos , Meisenzahl Eva , Wood Stephen , Brambilla Paolo , Borgwardt Stefan , Bertolino Alessandro , Koutsouleris Nikolaos 
Published: May 2020

Background

Functional deficits associated with the Clinical High Risk (CHR) status very often lead to inability to attend school, unemployment, as well as social isolation, thus calling for predictors of individual functional outcomes which may facilitate the identification of people requiring care irrespective of transition to psychosis. Studies have revealed that a pattern of cortical and subcortical gray matter volumes (GMV) anomalies measured at baseline in CHR individuals could predict their functional abilities at follow up. Furthermore, literature is consistent in revealing the crucial role of several environmental adverse events in increasing the risk of developing either transition to psychosis, or a worse overall personal functioning. Therefore, the aim of this study is to employ machine learning to test the individual and combined ability of baseline GMV data and of history of environmental adverse events in predicting good vs. poor social and occupational outcome in CHR individuals at follow up.

Methods

92 CHR individuals recruited from the 7 discovery PRONIA sites were included in this project. Social and occupational impairment at follow up (9–12 months) were respectively measured through the Global Functioning: Social (GF:S) and Role (GF:R) scale, and CHR with a follow up rating of 7 or below were labeled as having a poor functional outcome. This way, we could separate our cohort in 52 poor outcome CHR and 40 good outcome CHR. GMV data were preprocessed following published procedures which allowed also to correct for site effects. The environmental classifier was built based on Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Bullying Scale, and Premorbid Adjustment Scale (childhood, early adolescence, late adolescence and adulthood) scores. Raw scores have been normalized according to the psychometric properties of the healthy samples used for validating these questionnaires and scale, in order to obtain individual scores of deviation from the normative occurrence of adverse environmental events. GMV and environmental-based predictive models were independently trained and tested within a leave-site-out cross validation framework using a Support Vector Machine algorithm (LIBSVM) through the NeuroMiner software, and their predictions were subsequently combined through stacked generalization procedures.

Results

Our GMV-based model could predict follow up social outcome with 67.4% Balanced Accuracy (BAC) and significance (p=0.01), while it could not predict occupational outcome (46.6% BAC). On the other hand, our environmental-based model could discriminate both poor vs. good social and occupational outcomes at follow up with, respectively, 71% and 66.4% BACs, and significance (both p=0.0001). Specifically, the most reliable features in the environmental classifier were scores reflecting deviations from the normative values in childhood trauma and adult premorbid adjustment, for social outcome prediction, and in bullying experiences and late adolescence premorbid adjustment, for occupational outcome prediction. Only for social outcome prediction, stacked models outperformed individual classifiers’ predictions (74.3% BAC, p=0.0001).

Discussion

Environmental features seem to be more accurate than GMV in predicting both social and occupational outcomes in CHR. Interestingly, the predictions of follow up social and occupational outcomes rely on different patterns of occurrence of specific environmental adverse events, thus providing novel insights about how environmental adjustment disabilities, bullying and traumatic premorbid experiences may impact on different bad outcomes associated with the CHR status.