From Classical Methods to Generative Models: Tackling the Unreliability of Neuroscientific Measures in Mental Health Research

Abstract

Advances in computational statistics and corresponding shifts in funding initiatives over the past few decades have led to a proliferation of neuroscientific measures being developed in the context of mental health research. Although such measures have undoubtedly deepened our understanding of neural mechanisms underlying cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes associated with various mental health conditions, the clinical utility of such measures remains underwhelming. Recent commentaries point toward the poor reliability of neuroscientific measures to partially explain this lack of clinical translation. Here, we provide a concise theoretical overview of how unreliability impedes clinical translation of neuroscientific measures; discuss how various modeling principles, including those from hierarchical and structural equation modeling frameworks, can help to improve reliability; and demonstrate how to combine principles of hierarchical and structural modeling within the generative modeling framework to achieve more reliable, generalizable measures of brain-behavior relationships for use in mental health research.

Keywords: Bayesian analysis; Clinical assessment; Generative modeling; Measurement error; Neuroscientific measures; Reliability paradox.