Abstract
In this short communication, we test whether patients with major depression and healthy individuals have different functional connectivity within established brain networks. To this end, we leverage a very large multi-site data set of resting state fMRI data (1,300 depressed patients and 1,128 controls) collected by 25 groups. A previous study conducted on this data set compared functional connectivity of the default mode network between the two groups. In our investigation, we performed a meta-analysis across sites quantifying the effects of depression and symptom severity on connectivity of several brain-wide networks beyond the default mode. Running a meta-analysis instead of a mega-analysis also allowed us to calculate effect sizes, heterogeneity and prediction intervals that will be valuable to inform future studies wishing to investigate network functional connectivity in depression. Our results indicate that network connectivity differences between depressed and healthy subjects are consistently small, with confidence intervals almost always encompassing zero, in line with the mixed findings from previous research. Default mode network connectivity differences between depressed patients and controls were exceptionally heterogeneous across sites, suggesting the existence of depression sub-types with normo- and hypo-connected default mode network or a strong impact of clinical confounds on default mode network connectivity. The only networks for which connectivity in depressed individuals was consistently lower than in controls were the somatomotor and visual networks, which could be promising understudied targets for future investigation. Overall, we highlight the need of minimizing heterogeneity in future multi-site studies on functional connectivity in depression and the need for more research on novel taxonomies of mental illness that are robustly anchored in brain function.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [grant numbers U01MH109985].
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:
The Meta-MDD Consortium members provided deidentified and anonymized data from studies approved by local Institutional Review Boards. See https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900390116 for details.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Data Availability
Data was downloaded from the publicly available Meta-MDD dataset: http://rfmri.org/REST-meta-MDD Code for the analysis is available on Github: https://github.com/leotozzi88/meta_mdd_metaanalysis
