Anxiety-impulsivity subtypes in adolescent internalizing disorder are characterized by distinguishable neurodevelopmental, neurocognitive and clinical trajectory signatures
============================================================================================================================================================================

* Huaxin Fan
* Nanyu Kuang
* Xinran Wu
* Gechang Yu
* Tianye Jia
* Barbara J. Sahakian
* Trevor W. Robbins
* Gunter Schumann
* Jianfeng Feng
* Benjamin Becker
* Jie Zhang

## Abstract

**Background** Anxiety and impulsivity represent transdiagnostic pathology dimensions yet their interaction and contribution to emotional disorders in adolescence and to disease development remain controversial, and previous studies indicate heterogeneity within the broad category of internalizing disorders.

**Methods** A combination of hierarchical and non-hierarchical clustering strategies was employed to determine impulsivity-related subtypes (based on the facets of negative urgency, lack of planning, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking and positive urgency in UPPS-P scales) in a large cohort of adolescents with internalizing disorders (n=2437) from Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. Linear mixed-effect models were employed to determine cortical thickness alterations of the subtypes.

**Results** Data-driven clustering identified two distinct subtypes of internalizing patients (subtype 1/subtype 2) with comparable levels of increased anxiety yet distinguishable levels of impulsivity, i.e., enhanced (subtype 1) or decreased (subtype 2) compared to healthy controls. Subtype 1 was further characterized by thicker prefrontal and temporal cortical regions involved in regulatory control and fear processing, while subtype 2 did not demonstrate significant thickness alterations. The differential neuroanatomical profiles remained stable over the two-year follow-up, while the two subtypes had different neurodevelopmental trajectories. Subtype 1 additionally reported more psychopathology and dysfunctionality including higher suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms and transition rates to externalizing disorders during follow-up as well as impaired neurocognitive and educational performance compared to subtype 2. Moreover, for subtype 1, anxiety at baseline (9-10 years) was significantly positively associated with impulsivity (lack of perseverance) at 2-year follow-up, while in subtype 2, baseline anxiety was significantly negatively associated with impulsivity (sensation seeking) at 2-year follow-up.

**Conclusions** Our results demonstrate an impulsivity-dependent heterogeneity in adolescent internalizing disorders, with high-impulsivity patients being characterized by neurodevelopmental delay at the neural and cognitive levels. Individuals with elevated impulsivity are at a greater risk to develop behavioral dysregulation over the following two years and may thus require specific early interventions.

## Introduction

The conceptualization of psychiatric disorders as distinct diagnostic entities has been challenged by high comorbidity rates on the symptomatic level and increasing evidence for broad transdiagnostic meta-dimensions of psychopathology, such as internalizing and externalizing or impulsivity and compulsivity (Caspi et al 2020; Pasion and Barbosa 2019; Kotov et al 2017; Lees et al 2021; Robbins et al 2012; Romer et al 2021). This conceptualization offers advantages in terms of determining common etiological processes and neurobiological dysregulations (American Psychiatric Association 2013; Cuthbert and Insel 2013). Within the context of this dimensional conceptualization disorders are regarded as extreme points on continua that span a range of emotional and behavioral functions (Krueger 1999) [see e.g. also the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (Cuthbert and Insel 2013)] rather than traditional discrete diagnostic entities (Hudziak et al 2007).

Emotional or internalizing disorders represent the largest group of psychiatric disorders - encompassing primarily affective and mood disorders - which are characterized by exaggerated levels of anxious distress. In addition to anxiety, impulsivity - the tendency to act inappropriately and prematurely despite adverse outcomes also represents a major dimension of psychopathology (Cosi et al 2011; Cummings et al 2014; Whiteside and Lynam 2001). Whereas both dimensions have been increasingly associated with robust neurobiological dysregulations across diagnoses (Xu et al 2020; Linke et al 2021;

Newman et al 2016; Owens et al 2020), anxiety and impulsivity have usually been examined separately in internalizing or externalizing disorders, respectively. Accumulating evidence suggests that impulsivity may play a role in internalizing disorders, while findings on the relationship between anxiety and impulsivity in internalizing disorders remain inconsistent (Jakuszkowiak-Wojten et al 2015) such that the traditionally reported inverse association (Apter et al 1993; Taylor et al 2008) has been challenged by an accumulation number of recent studies reporting a positive relationship (Cosi et al 2011; Favaloroa and Moustafa 2020; Moustafa et al 2017; Yu et al 2020).

While exaggerated anxiety and impulsivity have been identified as key diagnostic dimensions in adult samples, most psychiatric conditions, including internalizing disorders, emerge already during adolescence (Castellanos-Ryan et al 2016; Rakesh et al 2020), a period characterized by fundamental processes of brain development and maturation (Shaw et al 2008), particularly synaptic pruning and myelination (Merz et al 2018). The neuromaturational changes are mirrored in the macroscale architecture of the brain particularly cortical thickness, which increases during childhood, decreases during adolescence and stabilizes during early adulthood (Huttenlocher 1979; Natu et al 2019; Shaw et al 2008). Dysregulation of neuromaturation of cortical thickness has been closely linked with the development of psychiatric disorders (Whittle et al 2020) and impaired cognitive performance (Shaw et al 2006). The developmental trajectories of brain systems differ, such that the “dual systems” or “maturational mismatch” theories hypothesize that regulatory prefrontal cortical regions undergo prolonged maturational changes while subcortical regions involved in reward and emotion processing mature earlier, leading to a developmental mismatch which in turn promotes emotion regulation and behavioral problems during adolescence (Casey et al 2008; Powers and Casey 2015; Steinberg 2008). Therefore, examining the interactions between anxiety and impulsivity and associations with adolescent neuromaturational trajectories may allow the determination of broad subtypes of neuropathological dysregulations at the core of psychiatric disorders in later life.

We aimed at determining the relationship between anxiety and impulsivity in a large sample of early adolescents with internalizing disorders. Specifically, we first clustered adolescents with pure internalizing disorders according to their levels of impulsivity using a data-driven approach. Next, we examined the differences between the groups on the neurobiological level by determining distinct brain morphological profiles in the subtypes. Subsequently, we explored the relationship between the dimensions of anxiety and impulsivity within the identified subtypes. Finally, we examined the differences of neurocognitive and educational performance between groups and differences between the subtypes at the clinical predictive level in terms of pathological trajectories during follow-up. Given that anxiety and impulsivity are major dimensions for the development of adolescent psychopathology (Cosi et al 2011) and impulsivity has been linked with brain morphological neurodevelopmental dysregulation (Owens et al 2020; Newman et al 2016; Zhu et al 2020) we hypothesized that the interactions at the symptomatic level should be reflected in terms of cortical thickness, specifically impulsivity-associated dysregulations in prefrontal regions, and that these alterations remain stable or increase over a development trajectory spanning the age between 10 to 12. Given the clinical challenge of predicting behavioral dysregulation in adolescence and previous findings suggesting that impulsive-anxious adolescents show a higher inclination to suicidality and depression (Askenazy et al 2003), we specifically focused on the development of suicidality, depression and behavioral dysregulation in terms of externalizing symptomatology.

## Methods and Materials

### Participants

A sample of 11878 children aged 9-10 years was obtained from Data Release 3.0 of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study ([https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/data-sharing/](https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/data-sharing/)). The ABCD study is a large longitudinal study that recruited children from 21 research sites across the USA (Casey et al 2018), and currently incorporates clinical, behavioral, cognitive, and multimodal neuroimaging data from baseline, 1-year and 2-year follow-up assessment ([https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/protocols/](https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/protocols/)). The ABCD study group obtained written and oral informed consent from parents and children, respectively (Auchter et al 2018). Details on the protocols and assessments are provided in corresponding publications from the ABCD study group (Barch et al 2018; Hagler Jr et al 2019; Casey et al 2018).

For the present study we excluded participants with missing data of corresponding measures or covariates and with bipolar disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, psychotic disorder, alcohol use or substance use disorder for the internalizing patients, as well as data which did not pass quality control for neuroimaging data.

### Measures

#### Categorical psychiatric diagnosis

Categorical psychiatric diagnoses were obtained via parent report using the structured computerized Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for DSM-5 (KSADS-5) (Barch et al 2018). For the present analysis lifetime diagnoses for the respective specific or unspecific disorders were employed. Based on the definitions of transdiagnostic dimensions of psychopathology in recent studies (Romer et al 2021; Caspi et al 2020; Lees et al 2021; Pasion and Barbosa 2019), two broad diagnostic families in our analyses were determined as internalizing disorders (depressive disorder, agoraphobia, panic disorder, specific phobia, separation anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder) and externalizing disorders (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder).

Our initial analyses focused on individuals with pure internalizing disorders while excluding subjects with comorbid externalizing disorders to control for the potential influence of comorbid externalizing conditions (Figure 1A). Individuals classified into this group were required to (1) fulfill the criteria for at least one internalizing disorders, while (2) comorbid externalizing disorders, bipolar disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, psychotic disorder, alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder led to exclusion. To test the robustness of our findings we repeated the analyses in all internalizing disorders patients (including those with comorbid externalizing conditions) (Figure 1A). Individuals without any lifetime diagnosis were classified as healthy controls (HC) and served as a reference group. Numbers of subjects and section procedures are shown in Figure 1B.

![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F1)

Figure 1 
Selection of subjects. (A) Visualization of selection of pure internalizing disorders patients and all internalizing disorders patients. (B) Flowchart showing selection of subjects and number of participants in each subgroup analysis. Our initial analyses focused on individuals with pure internalizing disorders while excluding subjects with comorbid externalizing disorders to control for the potential influence of comorbid externalizing conditions. To test the robustness of our findings we repeated the analyses in all internalizing disorders patients (italic in brackets) including those with comorbid externalizing conditions.

#### Trait impulsivity and sub-facets

Trait impulsivity and its sub-facets were assessed by means of the validated UPPS model of impulsivity (UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, Barch et al 2018) encompassing the sub-facets Negative and Positive Urgency (nu and pu, behavioral dysregulations in the context of negative or positive emotions, respectively), Lack of Premeditation and Perseverance (lopl and lope, indexed by tendencies to act without planning or quit difficult tasks, respectively), and Sensation Seeking (ss, seeking arousing and stimulating activities).

#### Anxiety, depression and behavioral problems scores

Levels of anxiety were derived from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) a widely used parent-report of child and adolescent behavior (Barch et al 2018) by capitalizing on raw scores of the Anxiety Problems scale which is aligned with DSM-anxiety symptoms. We additionally included the Depressive Problems as an index of depressive symptom load and other subscales (Externalizing Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, Aggressive Behavior, ADHD Problems, Oppositional Defiant Problems, Conduct Problems) to represent children’s behavioral problems.

#### Behavioral inhibition and activation

Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Gray 1987) proposes two neurobiological rooted motivational systems, the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) which determines responses to punishment and generates anxious emotions, and the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) which determines sensitivity to rewards and has been related to impulsivity (Gray 1987). Four sub-facets are included in the validated BIS/BAS scale, three for behavioral activation: Drive (basdr, intensity of goal directed behavior), Fun seeking (basfs, enjoyment for its own sake, spontaneity), and Reward Responsiveness (basrr, excitement over reinforcing outcomes) and one for behavioral inhibition (bis, e.g., worry, fearfulness) (Barch et al 2018).

#### Neurocognitive functioning

Neurocognitive functioning in the domains of language vocabulary knowledge, attention, cognitive control, executive function, episodic memory, working memory, processing speed and flexible thinking as well as composite scores for crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence and total intelligence (Weintraub et al 2013) were derived from the validated NIH toolbox.

#### Structural image acquisition and preprocessing

T1-weighted structural MRI (sMRI) data were collected on 3T MRI systems (Siemens Prisma, General Electric MR 750, Philips). Detailed information of acquisition is described in (Casey et al 2018). SMRI data preprocessing was completed by the ABCD study according to standardized processing pipelines (Hagler Jr et al 2019). Cortical surface reconstruction and subcortical segmentation were implemented via FreeSurfer, version 5.3.0. The current study used post-processed structural data of cortical thickness with the Desikan atlas-based classification (n=68) (Desikan et al 2006). Participants who did not pass visual inspection of T1 images and FreeSurfer quality control (imgincl_t1w_include=1) were excluded from the neuroimaging analysis.

### Statistical analyses

#### Clustering analysis

We capitalized on data-driven clustering techniques to determine subtypes of patients with internalizing disorders based on the five impulsivity dimensions of the UPPS-P model. In line with established guidelines for cluster analyses (Hair 2009) a combination of hierarchical and non-hierarchical procedures was employed. First, we used average silhouette width to determine the optimal number of clusters (Rousseeuw 1987). Second, a hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted to initialize the subsequent K-means clustering. All variables of UPPS-P were scaled, so that each variable contributes equally to the cluster formation. The hierarchical cluster analysis employed Ward’s method and the squared Euclidian distance measure. Third, means of every variable assigned to each cluster were calculated to initialize K-means clustering and cluster assignment was finally fine-tuned by a non-hierarchical K-means cluster analysis.

#### Behavioral and neurobiological (morphological development) characterization

We initially determined phenotypical differences in the domains of anxiety, impulsivity and motivational systems between the identified groups while controlling for age, sex and ethnicity. To characterize neurobiological basis of the phenotype differences linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) were employed to determine differences in cortical thickness between groups. LMMs were employed using *lme4* package ([https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html)). LMMs included random-effects for family ID and acquisition site ID and fixed-effects for dichotomous variable of subject groups (subtype 1, subtype 2 or HC), age, sex, ethnicity, family income, parental years of education, puberty score, body mass index and intracranial volume. False Discovery Rate (FDR, q=0.05) was used for multiple comparisons correction.

#### Neurodevelopmental variations related with anxiety and impulsivity

In addition to the categorical approach, we employed a dimensional approach examining associations between anxiety, impulsivity and cortical thickness in regions exhibiting significant between group differences in the entire sample (n=11878) (similar approach see Xu et al 2020; Xu et al 2021). LMMs were used to regress out the following covariates for neuroimaging variables: family ID and acquisition site ID for random-effects and age, sex, ethnicity, family income, parental years of education, puberty score, body mass index and intracranial volume for fixed-effects. False Discovery Rate (FDR, q=0.05) was used for multiple comparisons correction.

#### Subtype-specific developmental interactions between anxiety and impulsivity

We first used the Pearson correlation coefficient to examine associations between anxiety and impulsivity at baseline. Next, we capitalized on the longitudinal assessments of anxiety and impulsivity to determine whether levels of anxiety at baseline associate with subtype-specific trajectories of impulsivity over the following two years. To this end longitudinal associations between anxiety and impulsivity of the two subtypes were examined using cross-lagged panel models (CLPM) implemented by the *lavaan* package in R ([https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/index.html](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/index.html)). Anxiety and impulsivity scores were assessed at baseline and 2-year follow-up. The model was estimated by using maximum likelihood estimation. Standardized regression coefficients and p-values are reported. Age, sex, and ethnicity were regressed out as nuisance covariates.

#### Developmental trajectories of psychopathology, suicidality and transition rate to externalizing disorders between internalizing disorder subtypes

Direct comparisons were implemented to compare depressive problems and externalizing psychopathology (measured by the symptom scores on the CBCL) between subtype 1 and 2 at baseline and follow-up. Age, sex, and ethnicity were regressed out as nuisance covariates. False Discovery Rate (FDR, q=0.05) was used for multiple comparisons correction. We also compared the transition rate to externalizing disorders and the prevalence of suicidality (including suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and non-suicidal self-injury) at follow-up of the two subtypes using chi-square test.

#### Subtype-specific academic performance and cognition

As an index of cognitive performance and functioning in daily life we examined differences of academic performance (grades) and cognition between the identified groups at baseline.

## Results

### Sample characteristics

A total n=4066 healthy controls and n=2437 pure internalizing patients at baseline were included in all primary analyses. Demographic information is presented in Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/T1)

Table 1 
Sample characteristics at baseline. AIAN, American Indian/Alaska Native; NHPI = Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

a: Education of parents was measured by the years of education of the parent with the highest education, categorized as an ordinal variable across five bins (1: < HS Diploma; 2: HS Diploma/GED; 3: Some College; 4: Bachelor; 5: Post Graduate Degree).

b: Income was the sum of the annual incomes of both parents, categorized as an ordinal variable across ten bins (1: <$5,000; 2: $5,000-11,999; 3: $12,000-15,999; 4: $16,000-24,999; 5: $25,000-34,999; 6: $35,000-49,999; 7: $50,000-74,999; 8: $75,000-99,999; 9: $100,000-199,999; 10: >$200,000).

### Impulsivity determines distinct internalizing disorder subtypes

Curve of average silhouette width for the clustering indicated a two-cluster solution (Figure S1). Data-driven clustering of the internalizing patients based on the five UPPS-P dimensions revealed two subtypes of pure internalizing patients with high and low impulsivity, respectively (Figure 2A). The subtypes did not differ in terms of the ethnic distribution. However, subtype 2 included slightly more females and they were lower in social economic status. Demographic information and diagnosis of two subtypes are presented in Table S1 and S2, respectively.

![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F2)

Figure 2 
Behavioral differences between subtype 1, subtype 2 in pure internalizing patients and healthy control. (A) Five dimensions of impulsivity (UPPS-P) in two subtypes of internalizing patients (subtype 1 and subtype 2) determined by clustering analysis. (B) Comparisons of anxiety (CBCL-Anxiety Problems). (C) Comparisons of UPPS-P among groups. nu, negative urgency; pu, positive urgency; lope, lack of perseverance; lopl, lack of planning; ss, sensation seeking. HC, healthy control. * p<0.5; ** p<0.01; \***| p<0.001; \**\*|\* p<0.0001; NS, not significant.

We next compared levels of anxiety and impulsivity between subtype 1, subtype 2 and healthy controls (HC) at baseline (Figure 2B, C). Whereas both internalizing groups exhibited comparably exaggerated levels of anxiety relative to controls, subtype 1 exhibited increased while subtype 2 exhibited decreased impulsivity relative to the healthy reference group, respectively. With respect to the motivational systems subtype 1 exhibited increased while subtype 2 exhibited decreased levels of BAS compared to HC (Figure S2). A further longitudinal analysis capitalizing on the 2-year follow up data (Figure S3) revealed that differences in the anxiety, impulsivity and motivational systems remained stable over the follow-up period.

### Internalizing patients with high impulsivity exhibit increased cortical thickness

To determine the neurodevelopmental basis of the phenotypic differences we compared baseline cortical thickness between subtype 1, subtype 2 and HC, respectively. Subtype 1 had significantly thicker cortices than HC in left pars opercularis (t=4.17, p=3.2×10−5), pars triangularis (t=2.77, p=5.7 × 10−3), caudal middle frontal gyrus (t=3.61, p=3.0×10−4), superior frontal gyrus (t=3.23, p=1.2×10−3), precentral gyrus (t=3.83, p=1.31×10−4), paracentral lobule (t=2.99, p=2.8×10−3), inferior temporal gyrus (t=2.85, p=4.3×10−3), fusiform gyrus (t=3.35, p=8.1×10−4), lingual gyrus (t=2.99, p=2.7×10−3) and right inferior temporal gyrus (t=3.31, p=9.6 × 10−4) (all significant after FDR correction, Figure 3A), whereas subtype 2 did not display significant differences from HC or subtype 1 (Figure 3B, C).

![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F3)

Figure 3 
Neurobiological characterization of the subtypes of pure internalizing patients at baseline. (A) Thickness alterations in subtype 1 compared to HC (B) Thickness alterations in subtype 2 compared to HC (C) Thickness alterations in subtype 1 compared to subtype 2. (D) Thickness alterations in all pure internalizing patients (subtype 1 and subtype 2) compared to HC. HC, healthy control. * q<0.05, FDR corrected.

We additionally employed the conventional approach of pooling internalizing patients (subtype 1 and subtype 2) and compared cortical thicknesses between all pure internalizing patients and HC, which revealed similar significant differences compared to the differences between subtype 1 and HC (Figure 3D). Together this suggests that the conventional approach would have revealed cortical thickness alterations in internalizing patients, while the subtype analysis indicated that the differences were clearly and specifically driven by subtype 1, suggesting a neurodevelopmental subtype differentiation on adolescent internalizing disorders.

To investigate the stability of neurodevelopmental alterations between groups, we further compared 2-year follow-up cortical thickness between the subtypes and HC. We found similar differences as those at baseline such that the left pars opercularis (t=3.61, p=3.5 × 10−4, FDR corrected), paracentral lobule (t=2.26, p=0.024), fusiform gyrus (t=2.14, p=0.032), precentral gyrus (t=2.10, p=0.036), pars triangularis (t=2.01, p=0.045) and right inferior temporal gyrus (t=2.91, p=0.004) were still thicker in subtype 1 compared to HC (Figure S4A) and subtype 2 did not exhibit any significant differences from HC (Figure S4B). In contrast to the baseline data, the two subtypes differed at follow-up, specifically subtype 1 exhibited thicker left pars opercularis (t=3.78, p=1.6×10−4), right superior temporal gyrus (t=3.58, p=3.6×10−4) and middle temporal gyrus (t=3.51, p=4.6×10−4) compared to subtype 2 (all significant after FDR correction, see Figure S4C). Examination of the spatial similarity of the thickness distribution by means of employing Pearson correlation analyses between t-maps representing cortical thickness differences of the two subtypes and HC, revealed that the similarity between the subtypes at baseline (r=0.4, p=7×10−4, Figure S5A) was decreased at 2-year follow-up (r=0.14, p=0.24, Figure S5B) suggesting that the two subtypes of internalizing disorders become more dissimilar during development indicating divergent neurodevelopmental trajectories. Statistical t-value and p-value of comparisons of cortical thickness are listed in Table S3, S4.

### Higher impulsivity associates with larger cortical thickness of prefrontal cortex

Employing dimensional analysis in the entire sample focusing on regions with significant differences between subtype 1 and HC at baseline with both anxiety and impulsivity scores revealed that larger thickness of left pars triangularis was associated with increased sensation seeking (t=2.49, p=0.013) and larger thicknesses of left pars opercularis and superior frontal gyrus were associated both with increased sensation seeking (t=2.46, p=0.014 and t=2.49, p=0.013, respectively) and positive urgency (t=2.83, p=0.005 and t=2.97, p=0.003, respectively), which all passed FDR correction (Figure S6). Statistical t-value and p-value of the associations are presented in Table S5. Together this analysis suggests that different sub-facets of impulsivity are associated with morphological alterations in different frontal regions.

### Differential longitudinal associations between anxiety and impulsivity in the internalizing subtypes

We investigated the correlation between anxiety and impulsivity at baseline of the two subtypes separately and found two opposing patterns of correlation between them. Anxiety was related with increased lack of perseverance (r=0.10, p=0.0165) in subtype 1 (Figure 4A) but with decreased lack of planning (r=-0.10, p=0.0102) and sensation seeking (r=-0.13, p=0.0009) in subtype 2 (Figure 4B).

![Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F4)

Figure 4 
Correlation between anxiety and impulsivity in pure internalizing patients. (A) Baseline anxiety-impulsivity relationship in subtype 1. (B) Baseline anxiety-impulsivity relationship in subtype 2. (C) Longitudinal associations between anxiety and lack of perseverance in subtype 1. (D) Longitudinal associations between anxiety and sensation seeking in subtype 2. Anxiety was measured by CBCL-Anxiety Problem. Impulsivity was measured by sub-facets of UPPS-P. Threshold of significant p-value was 0.05. nu, negative urgency; pu, positive urgency; lope, lack of perseverance; lopl, lack of planning; ss, sensation seeking; anx, anxiety.

We further performed longitudinal association analyses between anxiety and impulsivity over two time points (baseline and 2-year follow-up) of the two subtypes separately by CLPM. In subtype 1 anxiety at baseline was significantly associated with increased lack of perseverance (β = 0.075, p = 0.031) at 2-year follow-up (Figure 4C), while in subtype 2 anxiety at baseline was significantly associated with decreased sensation seeking (β = −0.081, p = 0.031) at 2-year follow-up (Figure 4D), suggesting opposing and impulsivity sub-facet specific associations between baseline anxiety and the trajectories of impulsivity in subtype 1 and subtype 2. Detailed longitudinal associations between anxiety and impulsivity were listed in Table S6.

### Prediction of trajectories: Internalizing patients with high impulsivity exhibit higher psychopathology, higher risk of suicide, higher transition rate to externalizing disorders, poorer cognition and worse academic performance

To further determine distinct psychopathological and neurocognitive profiles between the groups we compared the respective indices between subtype 1 and subtype 2. We found that subtype 1 had higher scores of externalizing problems (e.g., scores of ADHD, ODD and CD in CBCL) compared to subtype 2 at baseline and follow-up, and that subtype 1 had higher depressive symptom load than subtype 2 at 2-year follow-up (Figure 5A). With respect to the clinical predictive utility of the subtypes we found that more patients in subtype 1 developed externalizing disorders (ADHD and ODD) during the 1-year follow-up (Figure 5B) and reported higher prevalence of suicidality, which is mainly driven by suicidal ideation, during the 2-year follow-up compared to subtype 2 (Figure 5C). With respect to functional performance in everyday life we found that subtype 1 had a poorer while subtype 2 had a better academic performance in terms of grades at baseline compared to HC (Figure 5D), and that subtype 2 had a better cognition performance, especially in crystallized intelligence (Figure 5E).

![Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/30/2021.10.30.21265692/F5)

Figure 5 
Differences of (A) psychopathology, (B) transition rate to externalizing disorders at 1-year follow-up, (C) transition rate to externalizing disorders and prevalence of suicidality at 2-year follow-up between subgroups in pure internalizing patients, and differences of (D) gradesa and (E) cognition at baseline between subgroups in pure internalizing patients and HC. external, Externalizing Problems; rulebreak, Rule-Breaking Behavior; aggressive, Aggressive Behavior; adhd, ADHD Problems; odd, Oppositional Defiant Problems; cd, Conduct Problems; depress, depressive problems; ADHD, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; ODD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder; CD, Conduct Disorder; Ideation, Suicidal ideation; Attempt, Suicide attempt; Self-injury, Nonsuicidal self-injury; picvoc, picture vocabulary; reading, oral reading recognition; cryst, crystallized intelligence; totalcomp, total intelligence; HC, healthy control. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; \***| p<0.001; \**\*|\* p<0.0001; NS, not significant. Red asterisks indicate p-values passed FDR correction. a: grades were scored reversely and 1 = excellent, 2= good, 3 = average, 4 = below average, 5 = struggling a lot, and 6 = ungraded.

### Robustness of the clustering results across externalizing disorder comorbidity

Our initial analyses focused on individuals with pure internalizing disorders while excluding subjects with comorbid externalizing disorders to control for a potential influence of comorbid externalizing conditions. To test the robustness of our findings we repeated the analyses including patients with comorbid externalizing conditions. The results of the clustering analysis and between-group differences [including cortical thickness, association between anxiety and impulsivity, level of anxiety and sub-facets of impulsivity, which are shown in Figure S7-9 and Table S7, S8] remained stable, suggesting impulsivity is a transdiagnostic factor, which cuts across all internalizing disorder patients independent of externalizing comorbidity.

## Discussion

Anxiety and impulsivity represent key transdiagnostic dimensions of psychopathology yet their interaction and contribution to emotional disorders in adolescence remains controversial (Jakuszkowiak-Wojten et al 2015) and previous findings of internalizing disorders on the symptomatic and neurobiological level remained inconsistent (Sellnow et al 2020; Kaczkurkin et al 2020; Shackman et al 2013). Combining a large adolescent sample consisting of 2437 internalizing patients aged 9-10 years with a data-driven clustering approach, we identified two distinct subtypes of internalizing patients with comparably elevated levels of anxiety but different levels of impulsivity. Specifically, subtype 1 exhibited elevated, while subtype 2 exhibited lower, levels of impulsivity compared to healthy controls. Our results resonate with recent findings on nonclinical undergraduates or patients with anxiety disorders (Binelli et al 2015; Kashdan and Hofmann 2008; Lipton et al 2016), both characterized by subtypes with similar level of anxiety but different level of impulsivity. The differentiation on the impulsivity dimension was mirrored by different neuroanatomical profiles, opposite relationships between anxiety and impulsivity, different neurocognitive and academic profiles, as well as different clinical trajectories with respect to the conversion to externalizing disorders, prevalence of suicidality, severity of externalizing and depressive problems. Together our results indicate that impulsivity represents a key defining factor for subtypes of young internalizing patients and that the corresponding heterogeneity of internalizing patients may account for the inconsistent findings in the previous literature.

Higher impulsivity in subtype 1 is related to increased thickness in higher order cognitive control networks involving left pars opercularis, pars triangularis and superior frontal gyrus, consistent with previous research (Newman et al 2016; Zhu et al 2020; Whelan et al 2012), and also broadly consistent with a previous study examining impulsivity-brain structural associations in the ABCD study (Owens et al 2020). These brain regions, i.e., ventrolateral and dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC), have been strongly involved in response inhibition (Liddle et al 2001; Zhuang et al 2021). DLPFC has been regarded as a critical region for cognitive control (Chen et al 2018; Miller and Cohen 2001), disruption of which increases choice of immediate rewards (Figner et al 2010). Morphological alterations of PFC in subtype 1 and their lower academic performance in everyday life (Figure 5D) may thus mirror poor cognitive control, maladaptive behaviors under stressful situations and tendency to adopt dysfunctional coping strategies which in the long run may give rise to increased levels of internalizing problems (Lim et al 2021; Reising et al 2018). Furthermore, the intact brain morphology in subtype 2 and the lack of significant correlations between anxiety and cortical thickness in the entire sample suggest that the observed alterations in cortical thickness exhibited subtype 1 are mainly driven by impulsivity rather than anxiety. It is worth noting that impulsivity is not a unitary construct (Strickland and Johnson 2021) and that different dimensions of impulsivity play different roles in disorders on the level of brain structure (Owens et al 2020).

From a neurodevelopmental perspective the observed findings resonate with the dual-system models hypothesizing that the PFC attains functional maturity later than the limbic system and this developmental mismatch results in poor emotion regulation during adolescence (Casey et al 2008; Powers and Casey 2015; Steinberg 2008). The development of thickness of PFC consists of initial childhood increase, following adolescent decrease and adult stabilization (Shaw et al 2008). Thicker PFC in subtype 1 may thus indicate their delayed development, which results in ineffective control over behavioral impulses in response to reward and punishment mediated by the limbic system which in turn may promote engagement in dysfunctional coping strategies under anxiety. Different neurodevelopmental trajectories of the two subtypes are also reflected by the increased thickness differences between them in 2-year follow-up, and by the more dissimilar patterns of cortical thickness alteration compared to HC (t-maps of the two subtypes being non-correlated) at 2-year follow-up compared to baseline.

In addition to alterations in frontal regions, subtype 1 additionally exhibited thicker cortices in occipito- and inferior temporal (fusiform) regions which have been associated with perceptual processes and emotional dysregulation (e.g. Spengler et al 2017; Fusar-Poli et al 2009; Gentili et al 2008) and play a central role in the network related to the pathogenesis of anxiety disorders which also includes the insular cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala (Xu et al 2021; Strawn et al 2014). In line with the functional characterization, greater thickness of these regions has been previously observed in pediatric generalized anxiety disorder and has been associated with fear learning, fear extinction, and deficits in the regulation of the amygdala (Strawn et al 2014), suggesting that developmental delay within these regions may promote a lack of adaptive responses during stressful and anxiogenic situations.

In subtype 1 higher anxiety at baseline preceded increasing impulsivity (lack of planning) over the subsequent two years, while baseline anxiety in subtype 2 correlated negatively with impulsivity (sensation seeking) at two-year follow-up. These two distinct subtypes may harmonize the previous controversial findings. On the one hand, anxiety might serve a critical defensive function for avoiding potential danger (Lee et al 2006; Taylor et al 2008), which has been considered to be inversely related to impulsivity (Apter et al 1993; Taylor et al 2008). This proposed pattern mirrors the findings in subtype 2. On the other hand, recent studies found that patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder had higher impulsivity than those without an anxiety disorder (Del Carlo et al 2012; Ferreira-Garcia et al 2019; Perugi et al 2011; Summerfeldt et al 2004; Taylor et al 2008), which indicates that anxiety can be positively related with impulsivity (Cosi et al 2011; Favaloroa and Moustafab 2020; Jakuszkowiak-Wojten et al 2015; Moustafa et al 2017; Yu et al 2020). This positive relationship appears to be a consequence of the greater salience of immediacy, overestimation of the value of immediate rewards and greater motivation to respond to immediacy in anxious people (Xia et al 2017). This corresponds to the characteristics that we identified in subtype 1.

The distinct anxiety-impulsivity relationship may suggest different strategies adopted by the two subtypes of internalizing patients to cope with anxiety. Subtype 1 may adopt dysfunctional coping like avoiding behaviors, which likely reduces anxiety temporarily but will lead to a maintenance of anxiety in future similar situations (Thomasson and Psouni 2010). Anxiety is believed to play a role in externalizing disorders characterized by impulsive behavior, particularly internet addiction (Bargeron and Hormes 2017; Peterka-Bonetta et al 2019), gambling (Devos et al 2020), alcohol and substance use (Adams et al 2019; Davis et al 2020; Zhou et al 2019). These impulsive behaviors serve to reduce the underlying emotional tension and provide immediate rewards (Tice et al 2001). Moreover, we also found that subtype 1 exhibits significantly higher BAS than controls while subtype 2 has significantly lower BAS than controls. The BAS refers to biologically based behavioral tendencies in response to rewarding stimuli and has been linked with impulsivity (Vollrath and Torgersen 2000). The high BAS scores of subtype 1 may thus reflect sensitivity to rewards, which may impede coping with their anxiety, while the lower impulsivity and BAS in subtype 2 suggest that they are less sensitive to distractions by rewards and thus more likely to resolve problems that caused their anxiety.

Psychopathological markers like suicidal ideation, depressive and externalizing symptoms at baseline and follow-up were all increased in subtype 1, with suicidal ideation and depression being important predictors of suicide in adolescents (Hubers et al 2018; Hawton et al 2013). Previous studies (Lipton et al 2016; Askenazy et al 2003) also reported an association between increased impulsivity and suicidality in internalizing patients. Suicidality encompasses suicidal ideation (Tsypes et al 2019), suicide attempt (Clark et al 2011; Dombrovski et al 2010) and nonsuicidal self-injury (Lutz et al 2021; Wilkinson et al 2018), and in the present study particularly suicidal ideation was found to contribute to the differences between subtypes which may reflect a high clinical relevance given that suicidal ideation has been associated with actual suicide attempts (Chapman et al 2015; Hubers et al 2018). Impulsivity, anxiety and depression are often immediate suicide risk factors that are potentially modifiable if recognized and treated urgently with effective medications and watchful support (Fawcett 2001). In addition, subtype 1 exhibited further cognitive problems, possible reflecting deficient or retarded neurocognitive and functional development, including lower academic grades in daily life. Notably subtype 2 exhibited higher crystallized intelligence and academic performance as compared to both other groups, potentially reflecting a neurocognitive compensation allowing adaptation despite elevated levels of anxiety. Together, subtype 1 may represent a group with a strongly increased psychopathological risk and a risk group for future behavioral and neurodevelopmental dysregulations. Therefore, early interventions for this subgroup, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which has been shown to alleviate anxiety in internalizing patients with high impulsivity (Subotic-Kerry et al 2016), are urgently needed.

### Strengths and Limitations

One strength of the present study is the fully data-driven determination of different subtypes in a large longitudinal cohort, which revealed subgroups of internalizing patients with distinct neuroanatomical, neurocognitive and psychopathological profiles at baseline and further diverging trajectories over the follow-up period. Moreover, the data-driven clustering results, neurodevelopmental profiles and distinct anxiety-impulsivity relationships in subtype 1 and subtype 2 remained stable using both pure internalizing patients and internalizing patients comorbid with externalizing disorders, indicating that anxiety-impulsivity relationships represent a transdiagnostic factor that cuts across diagnostic categories and comorbidity externalizing conditions in internalizing disorders. Although there were no differences in the gender distribution of internalizing patients and healthy controls in general, subtype 2 had a higher ratio females, suggesting the potential contribution of sex-differences which may be further explored in future studies. The findings have to be considered in the context of limitations, including the focus on brain morphological data while future studies should examine alterations on the level of functional activity and networks which may allow to characterized brain functional alterations underlying enhanced anxiety in subtype 2.

## Supporting information

Supplemental Table S1-S2, Supplemental Figure S1-S9 [[supplements/265692_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

Supplemental Table S3-S8 [[supplements/265692_file03.xlsx]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced are available online at [https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901](https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901)

[https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901](https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901) 

## Acknowledgments and Disclosures

JZ was supported by Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No.2018SHZDZX01) and ZJLab and NSFC 61973086. JF was supported by the 111 Project (No. B18015), the key project of Shanghai Science and Technology (No. 16JC1420402), National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC1312900), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 91630314). BB is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0701400).

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study ([https://abcdstudy.org](https://abcdstudy.org)), held in the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive. This is a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 11,000 children aged 9 to 10 and follow them over 10 years into early adulthood. The ABCD study is supported by National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under Grant U01DA041089, U24DA041123, U01DA041117, U01DA041022, U01DA041148, U01DA041106, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U24DA041147, U01DA041156, U01DA041134, U01DA041174, U01DA041120, U01DA041093, U01DA041025, U01DA050989, U01DA051039, U01DA051016, U01DA051037, U01DA050987, U01DA051018, U01DA051038 and U01DA050988. A full list of supporters is available at [https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners/](https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners/). A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at [https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/workgroups/](https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/workgroups/). The ABCD Research Consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the National Institutes of Health or ABCD Research Consortium investigators. The ABCD study data repository grows and changes over time. The ABCD study data used in this report came from Data Release 3.0 ([https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901](https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901)).

BJS consults for Cambridge Cognition, Greenfield BioVentures, and Cassava Sciences. TWR consults for Cambridge Cognition, Shionogi, Heptares, Takeda, Arcadia, and Greenfield Bioventures; and receives royalties from Cambridge Cognition and research grants from Shionogi and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.

## Footnotes

*   # These authors contribute equally to this work

*   Received October 30, 2021.
*   Revision received October 30, 2021.
*   Accepted October 30, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  Adams T, Rapinda KK, Frohlich JR, O’Connor RM, Keough MT (2019): Impulsivity moderates the effect of social anxiety on in-lab alcohol craving. ADDICT BEHAV 97:70–76.
    
    

2.  American Psychiatric Association A (2013): Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5: American Psychiatric Association.
    
    

3.  Apter A, Plutchik R, Van Praag HM (1993): Anxiety, impulsivity and depressed mood in relation to suicidal and violent behavior. ACTA PSYCHIAT SCAND 87:1–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03321.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8424318&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KH39500001&link_type=ISI) 

4.  Askenazy FL, Sorci K, Benoit M, Lestideau K, Myquel M, Lecrubier Y (2003): Anxiety and impulsivity levels identify relevant subtypes in adolescents with at-risk behavior. J AFFECT DISORDERS 74:219–227.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12738040&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

5.  Auchter AM, Mejia MH, Heyser CJ, Shilling PD, Jernigan TL, Brown SA, et al. (2018): A description of the ABCD organizational structure and communication framework. DEV COGN NEUROS-NETH 32:8–15.
    
    

6.  Barch DM, Albaugh MD, Avenevoli S, Chang L, Clark DB, Glantz MD, et al. (2018): Demographic, physical and mental health assessments in the adolescent brain and cognitive development study: Rationale and description. DEV COGN NEUROS-NETH 32:55–66.
    
    

7.  Bargeron AH, Hormes JM (2017): Psychosocial correlates of internet gaming disorder: Psychopathology, life satisfaction, and impulsivity. COMPUT HUM BEHAV 68:388–394.
    
    

8.  Billieux J, Thorens G, Khazaal Y, Zullino D, Achab S, Van der Linden M (2015): Problematic involvement in online games: A cluster analytic approach. COMPUT HUM BEHAV 43:242–250.
    
    

9.  Binelli C, Muñiz A, Sanches S, Ortiz A, Navines R, Egmond E, et al. (2015): New evidence of heterogeneity in social anxiety disorder: Defining two qualitatively different personality profiles taking into account clinical, environmental and genetic factors. EUR PSYCHIAT 30:160–165.
    
    

10. Blaszczynski A, Nower L (2002): A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. ADDICTION 97:487–499.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12033650&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175409100004&link_type=ISI) 

11. Casey BJ, Cannonier T, Conley MI, Cohen AO, Barch DM, Heitzeg MM, et al. (2018): The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: Imaging acquisition across 21 sites. DEV COGN NEUROS-NETH 32:43–54.
    
    

12. Casey BJ, Getz S, Galvan A (2008): The adolescent brain. DEV REV 28:62–77.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18688292&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254897300004&link_type=ISI) 

13. Caspi A, Houts RM, Ambler A, Danese A, Elliott ML, Hariri A, et al. (2020): Longitudinal assessment of mental health disorders and comorbidities across 4 decades among participants in the Dunedin birth cohort study. JAMA network open 3:e203221.
    
    

14. Castellanos-Ryan N, Brière FN, O’Leary-Barrett M, Banaschewski T, Bokde A, Bromberg U, et al. (2016): The structure of psychopathology in adolescence and its common personality and cognitive correlates. J ABNORM PSYCHOL 125:1039.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/abn0000193&link_type=DOI) 

15. Chapman CL, Mullin K, Ryan CJ, Kuffel A, Nielssen O, Large MM (2015): Meta-analysis of the association between suicidal ideation and later suicide among patients with either a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis or a mood disorder. ACTA PSYCHIAT SCAND 131:162–173.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/acps.12359&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25358861&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

16. Chen T, Becker B, Camilleri J, Wang L, Yu S, Eickhoff SB, et al. (2018): A domain-general brain network underlying emotional and cognitive interference processing: evidence from coordinate-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses. Brain Structure and Function 223:3813–3840.
    
    

17. Clark L, Dombrovski AY, Siegle GJ, Butters MA, Shollenberger CL, Sahakian BJ, et al. (2011): Impairment in risk-sensitive decision-making in older suicide attempters with depression. PSYCHOL AGING 26:321.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0021646&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21443349&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

18. Cosi S, Hernandez-Martinez C, Canals J, Vigil-Colet A (2011): Impulsivity and internalizing disorders in childhood. PSYCHIAT RES 190:342–347.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.psychres.2011.05.036&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21665292&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000298722900031&link_type=ISI) 

19. Cummings CM, Caporino NE, Kendall PC (2014): Comorbidity of Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents: 20 Years After. PSYCHOL BULL 140:816–845.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0034733&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24219155&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

20. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR (2013): Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC MED 11:1–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1741-7015-11-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23281898&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

21. Davis JP, Christie NC, Pakdaman S, Hummer JF, DeLeon J, Clapp JD, et al. (2020): Multifaceted impulsivity as a moderator of social anxiety and cannabis use during pregaming. J ANXIETY DISORD 76:102320.
    
    

22. Del Carlo A, Benvenuti M, Fornaro M, Toni C, Rizzato S, Swann AC, et al. (2012): Different measures of impulsivity in patients with anxiety disorders: A case control study. PSYCHIAT RES 197:231–236.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22357357&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

23. Desikan RS, Ségonne F, Fischl B, Quinn BT, Dickerson BC, Blacker D, et al. (2006): An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. NEUROIMAGE 31:968–980.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16530430&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238358500003&link_type=ISI) 

24. Devos G, Clark L, Bowden-Jones H, Grall-Bronnec M, Challet-Bouju G, Khazaal Y, et al. (2020): The joint role of impulsivity and distorted cognitions in recreational and problem gambling: A cluster analytic approach. J AFFECT DISORDERS 260:473–482.
    
    

25. Dombrovski AY, Clark L, Siegle GJ, Butters MA, Ichikawa N, Sahakian BJ, et al. (2010): Reward/punishment reversal learning in older suicide attempters. AM J PSYCHIAT 167:699–707.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030407&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20231320&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

26. Favaloroa B, Moustafab AA (2020): Intolerance of uncertainty and addiction. Cognitive, Clinical, and Neural Aspects of Drug Addiction:205.
    
    

27. Fawcett J (2001): Treating impulsivity and anxiety in the suicidal patient. ANN NY ACAD SCI 932:94–105.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11411193&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172009800007&link_type=ISI) 

28. Ferreira-Garcia R, Faria CGF, Nardi AE, Da Rocha Freire RC (2019): Negative affect mediates impulsivity in generalized anxiety disorder. PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 52:327–333.
    
    

29. Figner B, Knoch D, Johnson EJ, Krosch AR, Lisanby SH, Fehr E, et al. (2010): Lateral prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. NAT NEUROSCI 13:538–539.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nn.2516&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20348919&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277065700010&link_type=ISI) 

30. Fusar-Poli P, Placentino A, Carletti F, Landi P, Allen P, Surguladze S, et al. (2009): Functional atlas of emotional faces processing: a voxel-based meta-analysis of 105 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. J PSYCHIATR NEUROSCI.
    
    

31. Gentili C, Gobbini MI, Ricciardi E, Vanello N, Pietrini P, Haxby JV, et al. (2008): Differential modulation of neural activity throughout the distributed neural system for face perception in patients with Social Phobia and healthy subjects. BRAIN RES BULL 77:286–292.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18771714&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261126400012&link_type=ISI) 

32. Gray JA (1987): Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity - a commentary. J RES PERS 21:493–509.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987L257900007&link_type=ISI) 

33. Hagler Jr DJ, Hatton S, Cornejo MD, Makowski C, Fair DA, Dick AS, et al. (2019): Image processing and analysis methods for the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. NEUROIMAGE 202:116091.
    
    

34. Hair JF (2009): Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
    
    

35. Hawton K, Casañas I Comabella C, Haw C, Saunders K (2013): Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: A systematic review. J AFFECT DISORDERS 147:17–28.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23411024&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

36. Hubers A, Moaddine S, Peersmann S, Stijnen T, Van Duijn E, Van der Mast RC, et al. (2018): Suicidal ideation and subsequent completed suicide in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric populations: a meta-analysis. EPIDEMIOL PSYCH SCI 27:186–198.
    
    

37. Hudziak JJ, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR, Pine DS (2007): A dimensional approach to developmental psychopathology. INT J METH PSYCH RES 16:S16–S23.
    
    

38. Huttenlocher PR (1979): Synaptic density in human frontal cortex-developmental changes and effects of aging. BRAIN RES 163:195–205.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0006-8993(79)90349-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=427544&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1979GM38000002&link_type=ISI) 

39. Jakuszkowiak-Wojten K, Landowski J, Wiglusz MS, Cubala WJ (2015): Impulsivity in anxiety disorders. A critical review. PSYCHIAT DANUB 27 Suppl 1:S452–S455.
    
    

40. Kaczkurkin AN, Sotiras A, Baller EB, Barzilay R, Calkins ME, Chand GB, et al. (2020): Neurostructural heterogeneity in youths with internalizing symptoms. BIOL PSYCHIAT 87:473–482.
    
    

41. Kashdan TB, Hofmann SG (2008): The high-novelty–seeking, impulsive subtype of generalized social anxiety disorder. DEPRESS ANXIETY 25:535–541.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/da.20382&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17935217&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257017000009&link_type=ISI) 

42. Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR, Bagby RM, et al. (2017): The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J ABNORM PSYCHOL 126:454.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/abn0000258&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

43. Krueger RF (1999): The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of general psychiatry 56:921–926.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.921&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10530634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000083037300010&link_type=ISI) 

44. Lee WE, Wadsworth MEJ, Hotopf M (2006): The protective role of trait anxiety: a longitudinal cohort study. PSYCHOL MED 36:345–351.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0033291705006847&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16393365&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235812400006&link_type=ISI) 

45. Lees B, Squeglia LM, McTeague LM, Forbes MK, Krueger RF, Sunderland M, et al. (2021): Altered Neurocognitive Functional Connectivity and Activation Patterns Underlie Psychopathology in Preadolescence. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY-COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND NEUROIMAGING 6:387–398.
    
    

46. Liddle PF, Kiehl KA, Smith AM (2001): Event-related fMRI study of response inhibition. HUM BRAIN MAPP 12:100–109.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/1097-0193(200102)12:2<100::AID-HBM1007>3.0.CO;2-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11169874&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166809500004&link_type=ISI) 

47. Lim HJ, Moon E, Suh H, Yang SK, Park JM, Lee BD, et al. (2021): Psychometric Properties of Behavioral Checklist for Coping with Stress in Patients with Mood Disorders. PSYCHIAT INVEST 18:147.
    
    

48. Linke JO, Abend R, Kircanski K, Clayton M, Stavish C, Benson BE, et al. (2021): Shared and Anxiety-Specific Pediatric Psychopathology Dimensions Manifest Distributed Neural Correlates. BIOL PSYCHIAT 89:579–587.
    
    

49. Lipton MF, Weeks JW, Daruwala SE, De Los Reyes A (2016): Profiles of social anxiety and impulsivity among college students: A close examination of profile differences in externalizing behavior. J PSYCHOPATHOL BEHAV 38:465–475.
    
    

50. Lutz NM, Chamberlain SR, Goodyer IM, Bhardwaj A, Sahakian BJ, Jones PB, et al. (2021): Behavioral measures of impulsivity and compulsivity in adolescents with nonsuicidal self-injury. CNS SPECTRUMS:1–9.
    
    

51. Merz EC, He X, Noble KG (2018): Anxiety, depression, impulsivity, and brain structure in children and adolescents. NEUROIMAGE-CLIN 20:243–251.
    
    

52. Miller EK, Cohen JD (2001): An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. ANNU REV NEUROSCI 24:167–202.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11283309&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170109100007&link_type=ISI) 

53. Moustafa AA, Tindle R, Frydecka D, Misiak B (2017): Impulsivity and its relationship with anxiety, depression and stress. COMPR PSYCHIAT 74:173–179.
    
    

54. Natu VS, Gomez J, Barnett M, Jeska B, Kirilina E, Jaeger C, et al. (2019): Apparent thinning of human visual cortex during childhood is associated with myelination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:20750–20759.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE2LzQxLzIwNzUwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTAvMzAvMjAyMS4xMC4zMC4yMTI2NTY5Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

55. Newman E, Jernigan TL, Lisdahl KM, Tamm L, Tapert SF, Potkin SG, et al. (2016): Go/No Go task performance predicts cortical thickness in the caudal inferior frontal gyrus in young adults with and without ADHD. BRAIN IMAGING BEHAV 10:880–892.
    
    

56. Newman E, Thompson WK, Bartsch H, Hagler DJ, Chen C, Brown TT, et al. (2016): Anxiety is related to indices of cortical maturation in typically developing children and adolescents. Brain Structure and Function 221:3013–3025.
    
    

57. Owens MM, Hyatt CS, Gray JC, Miller JD, Lynam DR, Hahn S, et al. (2020): Neuroanatomical Correlates of Impulsive Traits in Children Aged 9 to 10. J ABNORM PSYCHOL 129:831–844.
    
    

58. Pasion R, Barbosa F (2019): ERN as a transdiagnostic marker of the internalizing-externalizing spectrum: A dissociable meta-analytic effect. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 103:133–149.
    
    

59. Perugi G, Del Carlo A, Benvenuti M, Fornaro M, Toni C, Akiskal K, et al. (2011): Impulsivity in anxiety disorder patients: Is it related to comorbid cyclothymia? J AFFECT DISORDERS 133:600–606.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jad.2011.04.033&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21665290&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

60. Peterka-Bonetta J, Sindermann C, Elhai JD, Montag C (2019): Personality associations with smartphone and internet use disorder: A comparison study including links to impulsivity and social anxiety. Frontiers in public health 7:127.
    
    

61. Powers A, Casey BJ (2015): The adolescent brain and the emergence and peak of psychopathology. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy 14:3–15.
    
    

62. Rakesh D, Allen NB, Whittle S (2020): Balancing act: Neural correlates of affect dysregulation in youth depression and substance use–A systematic review of functional neuroimaging studies. DEV COGN NEUROS-NETH 42:100775.
    
    

63. Reising MM, Bettis AH, Dunbar JP, Watson KH, Gruhn M, Hoskinson KR, et al. (2018): Stress, coping, executive function, and brain activation in adolescent offspring of depressed and nondepressed mothers. CHILD NEUROPSYCHOL 24:638–656.
    
    

64. Robbins TW, Gillan CM, Smith DG, de Wit S, Ersche KD (2012): Neurocognitive endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: towards dimensional psychiatry. TRENDS COGN SCI 16:81–91.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22155014&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000299607900016&link_type=ISI) 

65. Romer AL, Elliott ML, Knodt AR, Sison ML, Ireland D, Houts R, et al. (2021): Pervasively thinner neocortex as a transdiagnostic feature of general psychopathology. AM J PSYCHIAT 178:174–182.
    
    

66. Rousseeuw PJ (1987): Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J COMPUT APPL MATH 20:53–65.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=WOS:A1987L11&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987L111800005&link_type=ISI) 

67. Sellnow K, Sartin-Tarm A, Ross MC, Weaver S, Cisler JM (2020): Biotypes of functional brain engagement during emotion processing differentiate heterogeneity in internalizing symptoms and interpersonal violence histories among adolescent girls. J PSYCHIATR RES 121:197–206.
    
    

68. Shackman AJ, Fox AS, Oler JA, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ, Kalin NH (2013): Neural mechanisms underlying heterogeneity in the presentation of anxious temperament. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:6145–6150.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTEwLzE1LzYxNDUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMC8zMC8yMDIxLjEwLjMwLjIxMjY1NjkyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

69. Shaw P, Greenstein D, Lerch J, Clasen L, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, et al. (2006): Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. NATURE 440:676–679.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature04513&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16572172&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236350400045&link_type=ISI) 

70. Shaw P, Kabani NJ, Lerch JP, Eckstrand K, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, et al. (2008): Neurodevelopmental trajectories of the human cerebral cortex. J NEUROSCI 28:3586–3594.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIyOC8xNC8zNTg2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTAvMzAvMjAyMS4xMC4zMC4yMTI2NTY5Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

71. Spengler FB, Becker B, Kendrick KM, Conrad R, Hurlemann R, Schade G (2017): Emotional dysregulation in psychogenic voice loss. PSYCHOTHER PSYCHOSOM 86:121–123.
    
    

72. Steinberg L (2008): A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. DEV REV 28:78–106.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18509515&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254897300005&link_type=ISI) 

73. Strawn JR, Wegman CJ, Dominick KC, Swartz MS, Wehry AM, Patino LR, et al. (2014): Cortical surface anatomy in pediatric patients with generalized anxiety disorder. J ANXIETY DISORD 28:717–723.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.07.012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25155256&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

74. Strickland JC, Johnson MW (2021): Rejecting impulsivity as a psychological construct: A theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural argument. PSYCHOL REV 128:336.
    
    

75. Subotic-Kerry M, Baillie AJ, Stapinski LA, Teesson M, Sannibale C, Haber P, et al. (2016): IMPULSIVITY AS A PREDICTOR OF TREATMENT OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUALS WITH COMORBID SOCIAL ANXIETY AND ALCOHOL USE DISORDER. ALCOHOL CLIN EXP RES 401:108A.
    
    

76. Summerfeldt LJ, Hood K, Antony MM, Richter MA, Swinson RP (2004): Impulsivity in obsessive-compulsive disorder: comparisons with other anxiety disorders and within tic-related subgroups. PERS INDIV DIFFER 36:539–553.
    
    

77. Taylor CT, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, Ostacher MJ, Chow CW, LeBeau RT, Pollack MH, et al. (2008): Anxiety is associated with impulsivity in bipolar disorder. J ANXIETY DISORD 22:868–876.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.09.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17936573&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

78. Thomasson P, Psouni E (2010): Social anxiety and related social impairment are linked to self-efficacy and dysfunctional coping. SCAND J PSYCHOL 51:171–178.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19500297&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

79. Tice DM, Bratslavsky E, Baumeister RF (2001): Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!. J PERS SOC PSYCHOL 80:53–67.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11195891&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166362300004&link_type=ISI) 

80. Tsypes A, Owens M, Gibb BE (2019): Blunted neural reward responsiveness in children with recent suicidal ideation. Clinical psychological science 7:958–968.
    
    

81. Weintraub S, Dikmen SS, Heaton RK, Tulsky DS, Zelazo PD, Bauer PJ, et al. (2013): Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. NEUROLOGY 80:S54–S64.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872ded&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23479546&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

82. Whelan R, Conrod PJ, Poline J, Lourdusamy A, Banaschewski T, Barker GJ, et al. (2012): Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks. NAT NEUROSCI 15:920–925.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nn.3092&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22544311&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F10%2F30%2F2021.10.30.21265692.atom) 

83. Whiteside SP, Lynam DR (2001): The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. PERS INDIV DIFFER 30:669–689.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7&link_type=DOI) 

84. Whittle S, Vijayakumar N, Simmons JG, Allen NB (2020): Internalizing and externalizing symptoms are associated with different trajectories of cortical development during late childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 59:177–185.
    
    

85. Wilkinson PO, Qiu T, Neufeld S, Jones PB, Goodyer IM (2018): Sporadic and recurrent non-suicidal self-injury before age 14 and incident onset of psychiatric disorders by 17 years: prospective cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry 212:222–226.
    
    

86. Xia L, Gu R, Zhang D, Luo Y (2017): Anxious Individuals Are Impulsive Decision-Makers in the Delay Discounting Task: An ERP Study. FRONT BEHAV NEUROSCI 11.
    
    

87. Xu X, Dai J, Chen Y, Liu C, Xin F, Zhou X, et al. (2021): Intrinsic connectivity of the prefrontal cortex and striato-limbic system respectively differentiate major depressive from generalized anxiety disorder. NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOL 46:791–798.
    
    

88. Xu X, Dai J, Liu C, Chen Y, Xin F, Zhou F, et al. (2020): Common and disorder-specific neurofunctional markers of dysregulated empathic reactivity in major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. PSYCHOTHER PSYCHOSOM 89:114–116.
    
    

89. Yu Y, Yu Y, Lin Y (2020): Anxiety and depression aggravate impulsiveness: the mediating and moderating role of cognitive flexibility. *Psychology*, Health & Medicine 25:25–36.
    
    

90. Zhou X, Zimmermann K, Xin F, Zhao W, Derckx RT, Sassmannshausen A, et al. (2019): Cue reactivity in the ventral striatum characterizes heavy cannabis use, whereas reactivity in the dorsal striatum mediates dependent use. Biological psychiatry: cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging 4:751–762.
    
    

91. Zhu X, Wang K, Cao A, Zhang Y, Qiu J (2020): Personality traits and negative affect mediate the relationship between cortical thickness of superior frontal cortex and aggressive behavior. NEUROSCI LETT 718:134728.
    
    

92. Zhuang Q, Xu L, Zhou F, Yao S, Zheng X, Zhou X, et al. (2021): Segregating domain-general from emotional context-specific inhibitory control systems-ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex serve as emotion-cognition integration hubs. NEUROIMAGE:118269.