Abstract
Brain disorders comprise several psychiatric and neurological disorders which can be characterised by impaired cognition, mood alteration, psychosis, depressive episodes, and neurodegeneration. Clinical diagnoses primarily rely on a combination of life history information and questionnaires, with a distinct lack of discriminative biomarkers in use for psychiatric disorders. Given that symptoms across brain conditions are associated with functional alterations of cognitive and emotional processes, which can correlate with anatomical variation, structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of the brain are an important focus of research studies, particularly for predictive modelling. With the advent of large MRI data consortia (such as the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) facilitating a greater number of MRI-based classification studies, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) – deep learning models suited to image processing – have become increasingly popular for research into brain conditions. This has resulted in a myriad of studies reporting impressive predictive performances, demonstrating the potential clinical value of deep learning systems. However, modelling practices, transparency, and interpretability vary widely across studies, making them difficult to compare and/or reproduce, thus potentially limiting clinical applications. Here, we conduct a qualitative systematic literature review of 60 studies carrying out CNN-based predictive modelling of brain disorders using MRI data and evaluate them based on three principles – modelling practices, transparency, and interpretability. We furthermore propose several recommendations aimed at maximising the potential for the integration of CNNs into clinical frameworks.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6214.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All papers analysed in this review are available on either PubMed or Web of Science.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵† Provided equal supervision
Major tonal rewrites and additional papers have been added and evaluated.
Data Availability
All papers analysed in this review are available on either PubMed or Web of Science.