Salazar de Pablo Gonzalo, Iniesta Raquel, Bellato Alessio, Caye Arthur, Dobrosavljevic Maja, Parlatini Valeria, Garcia-Argibay Miguel, Li Lin, Cabras Anna, Haider Ali Mian, Archer Lucinda, Meehan Alan J, Suleiman Halima, Solmi Marco, Fusar-Poli Paolo, Chang Zheng, Faraone Stephen V, Larsson Henrik, Cortese Samuele
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mol Psychiatry. 2024 Dec;29(12):3865-3873. doi: 10.1038/s41380-024-02606-5. Epub 2024 May 23.
There have been increasing efforts to develop prediction models supporting personalised detection, prediction, or treatment of ADHD. We overviewed the current status of prediction science in ADHD by: (1) systematically reviewing and appraising available prediction models; (2) quantitatively assessing factors impacting the performance of published models. We did a PRISMA/CHARMS/TRIPOD-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023387502), searching, until 20/12/2023, studies reporting internally and/or externally validated diagnostic/prognostic/treatment-response prediction models in ADHD. Using meta-regressions, we explored the impact of factors affecting the area under the curve (AUC) of the models. We assessed the study risk of bias with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). From 7764 identified records, 100 prediction models were included (88% diagnostic, 5% prognostic, and 7% treatment-response). Of these, 96% and 7% were internally and externally validated, respectively. None was implemented in clinical practice. Only 8% of the models were deemed at low risk of bias; 67% were considered at high risk of bias. Clinical, neuroimaging, and cognitive predictors were used in 35%, 31%, and 27% of the studies, respectively. The performance of ADHD prediction models was increased in those models including, compared to those models not including, clinical predictors (β = 6.54, p = 0.007). Type of validation, age range, type of model, number of predictors, study quality, and other type of predictors did not alter the AUC. Several prediction models have been developed to support the diagnosis of ADHD. However, efforts to predict outcomes or treatment response have been limited, and none of the available models is ready for implementation into clinical practice. The use of clinical predictors, which may be combined with other type of predictors, seems to improve the performance of the models. A new generation of research should address these gaps by conducting high quality, replicable, and externally validated models, followed by implementation research.
为开发支持多动症个性化检测、预测或治疗的预测模型,人们付出了越来越多的努力。我们通过以下方式概述了多动症预测科学的现状:(1)系统回顾和评估现有的预测模型;(2)定量评估影响已发表模型性能的因素。我们进行了一项符合PRISMA/CHARMS/TRIPOD标准的系统综述(PROSPERO:CRD42023387502),截至2023年12月20日,搜索报告多动症内部和/或外部验证的诊断/预后/治疗反应预测模型的研究。使用元回归,我们探讨了影响模型曲线下面积(AUC)的因素的影响。我们使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估研究的偏倚风险。从7764条识别记录中,纳入了100个预测模型(88%为诊断模型,5%为预后模型,7%为治疗反应模型)。其中,分别有96%和7%经过内部和外部验证。没有一个模型在临床实践中得到应用。只有8%的模型被认为偏倚风险较低;67%被认为偏倚风险较高。临床、神经影像学和认知预测因素分别在35%、31%和27%的研究中使用。与不包括临床预测因素的模型相比,包括临床预测因素的多动症预测模型的性能有所提高(β = 6.54,p = 0.007)。验证类型、年龄范围、模型类型、预测因素数量、研究质量和其他类型的预测因素均未改变AUC。已经开发了几种预测模型来支持多动症的诊断。然而,预测结果或治疗反应的努力有限,现有的模型均未准备好应用于临床实践。使用临床预测因素,可能与其他类型的预测因素相结合,似乎可以提高模型的性能。新一代的研究应该通过开展高质量、可重复和外部验证的模型,随后进行实施研究来填补这些空白。