Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with an increased risk of brain atrophy, aging-related diseases, and mortality. We examined potential advanced brain aging in adult MDD patients, and whether this process is associated with clinical characteristics in a large multicenter international dataset. We performed a mega-analysis by pooling brain measures derived from T1-weighted MRI scans from 19 samples worldwide. Healthy brain aging was estimated by predicting chronological age (18-75 years) from 7 subcortical volumes, 34 cortical thickness and 34 surface area, lateral ventricles and total intracranial volume measures separately in 952 male and 1236 female controls from the ENIGMA MDD working group. The learned model coefficients were applied to 927 male controls and 986 depressed males, and 1199 female controls and 1689 depressed females to obtain independent unbiased brain-based age predictions. The difference between predicted "brain age" and chronological age was calculated to indicate brain-predicted age difference (brain-PAD). On average, MDD patients showed a higher brain-PAD of +1.08 (SE 0.22) years (Cohen's d = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.08-0.20) compared with controls. However, this difference did not seem to be driven by specific clinical characteristics (recurrent status, remission status, antidepressant medication use, age of onset, or symptom severity). This highly powered collaborative effort showed subtle patterns of age-related structural brain abnormalities in MDD. Substantial within-group variance and overlap between groups were observed. Longitudinal studies of MDD and somatic health outcomes are needed to further assess the clinical value of these brain-PAD estimates.
Identifying neurobiological differences between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy individuals has been a mainstay of clinical neuroscience for decades. However, recent meta-analyses have raised concerns regarding the replicability and clinical relevance of brain alterations in depression.OBJECTIVE To quantify the upper bounds of univariate effect sizes, estimated predictive utility, and distributional dissimilarity of healthy individuals and those with depression across structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion-tensor imaging, and functional task-based as well as resting-state MRI, and to compare results with an MDD polygenic risk score (PRS) and environmental variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis was a cross-sectional, case-control clinical neuroimaging study. Data were part of the Marburg-Münster Affective Disorders Cohort Study. Patients with depression and healthy controls were recruited from primary care and the general population in Münster and Marburg, Germany. Study recruitment was performed from September 11, 2014, to September 26, 2018. The sample comprised patients with acute and chronic MDD as well as healthy controls in the age range of 18 to 65 years. Data were analyzed from October 29, 2020, to April 7, 2022.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary analyses included univariate partial effect size (η 2 ), classification accuracy, and distributional overlapping coefficient for healthy individuals and those with depression across neuroimaging modalities, controlling for age, sex, and additional modality-specific confounding variables. Secondary analyses included patient subgroups for acute or chronic depressive status.RESULTS A total of 1809 individuals (861 patients [47.6%] and 948 controls [52.4%]) were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 35.6 [13.2] years; 1165 female patients [64.4%]). The upper bound of the effect sizes of the single univariate measures displaying the largest group difference ranged from partial η 2 of 0.004 to 0.017, and distributions overlapped between 87% and 95%, with classification accuracies ranging between 54% and 56% across neuroimaging modalities. This pattern remained virtually unchanged when considering either only patients with acute or chronic depression. Differences were comparable with those found for PRS but substantially smaller than for environmental variables.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this case-control study suggest that even for maximum univariate biological differences, deviations between patients with MDD and healthy controls were remarkably small, single-participant prediction was not possible, and similarity between study groups dominated. Biological psychiatry should facilitate meaningful outcome measures or predictive approaches to increase the potential for a personalization of the clinical practice.
Asymmetry is a subtle but pervasive aspect of the human brain, and it may be altered in several psychiatric conditions. MRI studies have shown subtle differences of brain anatomy between people with major depressive disorder and healthy control subjects, but few studies have specifically examined brain anatomical asymmetry in relation to this disorder, and results from those studies have remained inconclusive. At the functional level, some electroencephalography studies have indicated left fronto-cortical hypoactivity and right parietal hypoactivity in depressive disorders, so aspects of lateralized anatomy may also be affected. The authors used pooled individual-level data from data sets collected around the world to investigate differences in laterality in measures of cortical thickness, cortical surface area, and subcortical volume between individuals with major depression and healthy control subjects. Methods: The authors investigated differences in the laterality of thickness and surface area measures of 34 cerebral cortical regions in 2,256 individuals with major depression and 3,504 control subjects from 31 separate data sets, and they investigated volume asymmetries of eight subcortical structures in 2,540 individuals with major depression and 4,230 control subjects from 32 data sets. T 1-weighted MRI data were processed with a single protocol using FreeSurfer and the Desikan-Killiany atlas. The large sample size provided 80% power to detect effects of the order of Cohen's d=0.1. Results: The largest effect size (Cohen's d) of major depression diagnosis was 0.085 for the thickness asymmetry of the superior temporal cortex, which was not significant after adjustment for multiple testing. Asymmetry measures were not significantly associated with medication use, acute compared with remitted status, first episode compared with recurrent status, or age at onset. Conclusions: Altered brain macro-anatomical asymmetry may be of little relevance to major depression etiology in most cases.
We currently observe a disconcerting phenomenon in machine learning studies in psychiatry: While we would expect larger samples to yield better results due to the availability of more data, larger machine learning studies consistently show much weaker performance than the numerous small-scale studies. Here, we systematically investigated this effect focusing on one of the most heavily studied questions in the field, namely the classification of patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and healthy controls based on neuroimaging data. Drawing upon structural MRI data from a balanced sample of N = 1868 MDD patients and healthy controls from our recent international Predictive Analytics Competition (PAC), we first trained and tested a classification model on the full dataset which yielded an accuracy of 61%. Next, we mimicked the process by which researchers would draw samples of various sizes (N = 4 to N = 150) from the population and showed a strong risk of misestimation. Specifically, for small sample sizes (N = 20), we observe accuracies of up to 95%. For medium sample sizes (N = 100) accuracies up to 75% were found. Importantly, further investigation showed that sufficiently large test sets effectively protect against performance misestimation whereas larger datasets per se do not. While these results question the validity of a substantial part of the current literature, we outline the relatively low-cost remedy of larger test sets, which is readily available in most cases.
A positive association between brain size and intelligence is firmly established, but whether region-specific anatomical differences contribute to general intelligence remains an open question. Results from voxel-based morphometry (VBM)one of the most widely used morphometric methods-have remained inconclusive so far. Here, we applied cross-validated machine learning-based predictive modeling to test whether out-of-sample prediction of individual intelligence scores is possible on the basis of voxel-wise gray matter volume. Features were derived from structural magnetic resonance imaging data (N = 308) using (a) a purely data-driven method (principal component analysis) and (b) a domain knowledge-based approach (atlas parcellation). When using relative gray matter (corrected for total brain size), only the atlas-based approach provided significant prediction, while absolute gray matter (uncorrected) allowed for above-chance prediction with both approaches. Importantly, in all significant predictions, the absolute error was relatively high, i.e., greater than ten IQ points, and in the atlas-based models, the predicted IQ scores varied closely around the sample mean. This renders the practical value even of statistically significant prediction results questionable. Analyses based on the gray matter of functional brain networks yielded significant predictions for the fronto-parietal network and the cerebellum. However, the mean absolute errors were not reduced in contrast to the global models, suggesting that general intelligence may be related more to global than region-specific differences in gray matter volume. More generally, our study highlights the importance of predictive statistical analysis approaches for clarifying the neurobiological bases of intelligence and provides important suggestions for future research using predictive modeling.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.