Speech Graphs Provide a Quantitative Measure of Thought Disorder in Psychosis

Background: Psychosis has various causes, including mania and schizophrenia. Since the differential diagnosis of psychosis is exclusively based on subjective assessments of oral interviews with patients, an objective quantification of the speech disturbances that characterize mania and schizophrenia is in order. In principle, such quantification could be achieved by the analysis of speech graphs. A graph represents a network with nodes connected by edges; in speech graphs, nodes correspond to words and edges correspond to semantic and grammatical relationships. Methodology/Principal Findings: To quantify speech differences related to psychosis, interviews with schizophrenics, manics and normal subjects were recorded and represented as graphs. Manics scored significantly higher than schizophrenics in ten graph measures. Psychopathological symptoms such as logorrhea, poor speech, and flight of thoughts were grasped by the analysis even when verbosity differences were discounted. Binary classifiers based on speech graph measures sorted schizophrenics from manics with up to 93.8% of sensitivity and 93.7% of specificity. In contrast, sorting based on the scores of two standard psychiatric scales (BPRS and PANSS) reached only 62.5% of sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions/Significance: The results demonstrate that alterations of the thought process manifested in the speech of psychotic patients can be objectively measured using graph-theoretical tools, developed to capture specific features of the normal and dysfunctional flow of thought, such as divergence and recurrence. The quantitative analysis of speech graphs is not redundant with standard psychometric scales but rather complementary, as it yields a very accurate sorting of schizophrenics and manics. Overall, the results point to automated psychiatric diagnosis based not on what is said, but on how it is said.

Discriminating Different Classes of Biological Networks by Analyzing the Graphs Spectra Distribution

The brain's structural and functional systems, protein-protein interaction, and gene networks are examples of biological systems that share some features of complex networks, such as highly connected nodes, modularity, and small-world topology. Recent studies indicate that some pathologies present topological network alterations relative to norms seen in the general population. Therefore, methods to discriminate the processes that generate the different classes of networks (e. g., normal and disease) might be crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of the disease. It is known that several topological properties of a network (graph) can be described by the distribution of the spectrum of its adjacency matrix. Moreover, large networks generated by the same random process have the same spectrum distribution, allowing us to use it as a "fingerprint". Based on this relationship, we introduce and propose the entropy of a graph spectrum to measure the "uncertainty" of a random graph and the Kullback-Leibler and Jensen-Shannon divergences between graph spectra to compare networks. We also introduce general methods for model selection and network model parameter estimation, as well as a statistical procedure to test the nullity of divergence between two classes of complex networks. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed methods by applying them to (1) protein-protein interaction networks of different species and (2) on networks derived from children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and typically developing children. We conclude that scale-free networks best describe all the protein-protein interactions. Also, we show that our proposed measures succeeded in the identification of topological changes in the network while other commonly used measures (number of edges, clustering coefficient, average path length) failed.

A comparison of deterministic, reliability-based and risk-based structural optimization under uncertainty

In this paper, the effects of uncertainty and expected costs of failure on optimum structural design are investigated, by comparing three distinct formulations of structural optimization problems. Deterministic Design Optimization (DDO) allows one the find the shape or configuration of a structure that is optimum in terms of mechanics, but the formulation grossly neglects parameter uncertainty and its effects on structural safety. Reliability-based Design Optimization (RBDO) has emerged as an alternative to properly model the safety-under-uncertainty part of the problem. With RBDO, one can ensure that a minimum (and measurable) level of safety is achieved by the optimum structure. However, results are dependent on the failure probabilities used as constraints in the analysis. Risk optimization (RO) increases the scope of the problem by addressing the compromising goals of economy and safety. This is accomplished by quantifying the monetary consequences of failure, as well as the costs associated with construction, operation and maintenance. RO yields the optimum topology and the optimum point of balance between economy and safety. Results are compared for some example problems. The broader RO solution is found first, and optimum results are used as constraints in DDO and RBDO. Results show that even when optimum safety coefficients are used as constraints in DDO, the formulation leads to configurations which respect these design constraints, reduce manufacturing costs but increase total expected costs (including expected costs of failure). When (optimum) system failure probability is used as a constraint in RBDO, this solution also reduces manufacturing costs but by increasing total expected costs. This happens when the costs associated with different failure modes are distinct. Hence, a general equivalence between the formulations cannot be established. Optimum structural design considering expected costs of failure cannot be controlled solely by safety factors nor by failure probability constraints, but will depend on actual structural configuration. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.