Abstract
Background N-acetyl aspartate (NAA) is a marker of neuronal integrity and metabolism. Deficiency in neuronal plasticity and hypometabolism are implicated in the pathophysiology of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). To test if cerebral NAA concentrations decrease progressively over the MDD course, we conducted a meta-analysis of Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (1H-MRS) studies comparing NAA concentrations in chronic MDD (cMDD) and first episode of depression (FED) to healthy controls.
Methods We searched Scopus® and Web of Knowledge℠ using search terms related to depression and NAA. Hedges’ g was used as effect size measure, together with heterogeneity analyses, test of moderators and publication bias and quality assessment. The protocol is pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020221050). Sixty-two studies were included and meta-analyzed using a random-effect model for each brain region.
Results NAA concentrations were significantly reduced in cMDD compared to healthy controls within the frontal lobe (Hedges’ g =-0.330; p=0.018), the occipital lobe (Hedges’ g=-0.677; p=0.007), the thalamus (Hedges’ g=-0.673; p=0.016) and the frontal (Hedges’ g=-0.471; p=0.034) and periventricular white matter (Hedges’ g=-0.478; p=0.047). We highlighted a gap of knowledge regarding NAA levels in FED. Sensitivity analyses indicated that antidepressant treatment may reverse NAA alterations in the frontal lobe. None of the clinical or 1H-MRS-related methodological moderators had a significant impact on the effect sizes.
Conclusions Our findings are in line with the hypometabolism hypothesis of MDD. Future studies should assess NAA alterations in the early stages of the illness and their longitudinal progression, also considering the modifying effect of antidepressant treatment.
1. Introduction
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a prevalent and serious mood disorder. Accounting for 10% of the total non-fatal disease burden worldwide and affecting more than 300 million people, MDD is globally responsible for more years lost to disability than any other disease according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and is a major contributor to deaths by suicide(1). In MDD, a malfunction of multiple brain areas, including the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex, has been postulated, but, despite significant advances, its pathophysiology and the molecular basis of treatments are still poorly understood. This is further complicated by the heterogeneity of disease phases, as clinical(2) and radiological(3) markers differ between First Episode of Depression (FED) and chronic MDD (cMDD). Differentiating MDD stages has important implications for patient care and clinical research(4). Current treatments for depression do not effectively or sufficiently reduce the associated morbidity and mortality(5). Indeed, up to 50% of individuals treated with antidepressant medications for MDD do not achieve full remission(6). These data highlight the need for a better pathophysiologic insight in MDD, as well as for diagnostic and prognostic markers.
Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (1H-MRS) is a non-invasive technique that allows the in vivo measurement of biochemical changes in the brain, to produce a regionally specific molecular fingerprint. Recent technological advances allow higher signal-to-noise ratios than ever before and finer metabolite analysis. 1H-MRS is thus becoming increasingly clinically relevant, contributing to our understanding of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia(7), bipolar disorder(8), and anxiety(9).
N-acetyl aspartate (NAA) is the main peak in the 1H-MRS spectra, which makes it easily measured, also at lower and more available field strengths(7). As NAA takes part in lipid biosynthesis, including myelin, it is believed to be a marker of viable neuronal tissue, neuronal health, and neuronal energy metabolism(10). In fact, a permanent NAA decrease is observed in cerebral stroke(11) and neurodegenerative diseases(12), while a transient decrease is observed in acute demyelinating diseases(13) and in the ischemic penumbra(14). Accordingly, cerebral NAA concentrations positively correlate with other parameters of neuronal metabolism(15–17), and an NAA reduction is associated with neuronal loss or damage(18), or lower neuronal metabolic function(7).
Interestingly, cerebral hypometabolism is thought to be an important player in MDD pathophysiology, potentially underlying MDD symptoms. Evidence for this includes a metanalysis of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies on 188 MDD patients and 169 healthy controls (HC) showing reduced metabolism in multiple brain regions in MDD patients(19). Therefore, cerebral NAA has been studied as a promising diagnostic, prognostic, and/or therapeutic biomarker of MDD. To the best of our knowledge, the most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis of 1H-MRS in MDD, involving multiple brain regions and metabolites, was published in 2006(20), and did not report detectable changes in NAA levels. Our meta-analysis aims at comparing NAA levels, measured in every brain region using 1H-MRS, between patients with a diagnosis of MDD (FED or cMDD) and HC. We hypothesize that cerebral NAA concentrations should be lower in MDD patients relative to HC. Our hypothesis is that NAA reduction will be larger in cMDD as compared to FED, in accordance with progressive neuronal damage or hypometabolic changes over the course of the illness(3).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Information sources, search strategy, and selection criteria
This Systematic Review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary Table 1)(21), and is pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020221050).
We used a two-step approach to identify articles assessing NAA concentration in MDD patients and HC using 1H-MRS.
First, we performed an automatic search of two electronic databases: a) Scopus® (www.scopus.com/) Advanced Search, with the following search formula: “TITLE-ABS-KEY (n-acetylaspartate) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (naa) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (major AND depressive AND disorder) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (mdd) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (depression)”; b) Web of Knowledge℠ database by Thomas Reuters ® (including Web of Science™, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovation Index KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE®, Russian Science Citation Index, SciELO Citation Index, www.webofknowledge.com/), with the following search formula: “TS=( n-acetylaspartate OR NAA) AND TS=(Major depressive disorder OR depression OR MDD)”. The search was extended until the 15th of October 2021. In the second step, we conducted a manual search of the reference lists of all retrieved articles to check for studies potentially missing in the first step. Duplicate references were removed manually. The identified articles were first screened by title and abstract, and the full texts of surviving articles were further inspected for eligibility against the a priori-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Candidate articles were independently screened and scrutinized by MT and FT. Discrepancies in study selection were resolved by discussion with an independent arbiter (GR).
We included original articles written in English that employed 1H-MRS to compare brain levels of NAA between adult (>18 years old) patients with a diagnosis of MDD and HC and reported enough data to compute effect sizes. The Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) criteria are detailed in Supplementary Table 2, and the selection in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).
2.2. Data extraction
Data were independently extracted by MT and FT. The extracted data were cross-checked, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion between MT, FT, and the independent arbiter (GR). We extracted sample size, mean NAA concentration and standard deviation(22) or standard error of the mean(23) for MDD patient and HC groups. If the normality assumption allowed parametric statistics in the original paper, t-test or p-value were extracted alongside with direction of the effect size (Supplementary Methods).
Where available, we extracted values for: the frontal lobe, including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), prefrontal cortex (PFC), medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and frontal white matter (FWM); the parietal lobe, including parietal white matter (PWM); the temporal lobe, including medial temporal region; the occipital lobe; the limbic lobe, including anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), hippocampus and amygdala; the insular cortex; subcortical structures, such as the thalamus and basal ganglia (BG); the cerebellum; the brain stem; and the periventricular white matter (PVWM). Studies reporting voxels in the striatum, putamen, caudate or lentiform nucleus were counted with studies reporting voxels in the BG and analyzed together. When data from bilateral lobes were reported separately, data from the left lobe was used as the left lobe is examined in most studies(24). We also extracted publication year, information about 1H-MRS technique such as field strength, acquisition sequence, echo time (TE) and relaxation time(25), NAA quantification (Cr scaling vs absolute concentration), evidence of correction for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) partial volume (yes vs no), age of patients and controls, percentage of female subjects, any psychoactive therapy (antidepressants, benzodiazepines, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics), values of the available depression score such as Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17,21 or 24 items (HAMD 17, 21 or 24), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Beck Inventory Scale (BDI). When patient or control groups were split into separately presented subgroups, values were pooled to provide a single value for the entire patient and control groups, using the supplementary formula in Supplementary Table 3.
2.3. Quality assessment
The quality of the selected studies was assessed independently by two reviewers (MT and FT) with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)(26). Studies were evaluated using NOS considering three aspects: patient selection, comparability, and exposure (Supplementary Table 13).
2.4. Statistical analysis
2.4.1. Main analysis
We performed the meta-analysis using the meta(27), metaphor(28) and dmetar(29) packages in R (version 4.0.5), following the guide in Harrer et al.(30). We ran separate meta-analyses by brain region and illness stage. Studies pooling data of illness phases and/or brain regions were excluded from the analyses if data was inseparable. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effect model to account for sources of heterogeneity in the combined analysis.
We report the main outcome, i.e. differences in NAA levels between MDD patients and HC, as Hedge’s g with a significance threshold of p < 0.05(31). Results were visualized through forest plots and tables. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistics(31) and quantified total variability by the I2 index(32). We identified outliers and ran sensitivity analyses without them. Through influence analyses, we detected studies with a large impact on the pooled effect size. We employed the Graphic Display of Heterogeneity (GOSH) plots(33) to explore heterogeneity when at least nine studies were available. To assess the robustness of the results, we performed sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing each study and re-running the analysis(28).
2.4.2. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions
The impact of categorical moderators was evaluated through subgroup analyses. A-priori defined categorical moderators were: 1H-MRS acquisition sequence; NAA quantification (Cr scaling vs absolute concentration); cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) quantification (yes vs no); antidepressant treatment (yes vs no). Subgroup analyses were conducted where each subgroup had at least 4 studies(31), using the fixed-effects plural model.
For groups with 10 or more studies, we fitted meta-regression models to investigate the influence of pre-defined continuous moderators: year of publication, age, female percentage, ¹H-MRS field strength, TE, time relaxation, illness duration, and HAMD scores.
We conducted supplementary sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of geriatric populations on the meta-analytical estimates. Because of numerical constraints, this was possible only in five brain regions in cMDD patients: medial prefrontal region, anterior cingulate, hippocampus, BG, and FWM.
2.4.3. Publication bias
We tested publication bias using the P-Curve Analysis and the Small Sample Bias Method. We plotted p-curves and funnel plots. For groups with 10 or more studies, we quantitatively assessed publication bias using Egger’s Test(34). When Egger’s test was significant, we used the Duval and Tweedie Trim-and-Fill procedure to estimate true effects controlling for any detected bias(35).
3. Results
As described in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1), we identified 811 records through database searching (424 from Scopus and 387 from WOS) and 15 records through manual search. After duplicates were removed, we screened 577 records and we excluded 414 records based on title and abstract, so that 163 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We excluded 87 full-text articles, leaving 76 studies eligible for the meta-analysis. We excluded 10 articles because they did not present enough data, and data could not be retrieved despite attempts to contact the authors(36–45). Four articles were excluded(46–49) because they did not distinguish FED from cMDD patients in the analyses. Thus, 62 studies were included in 15 separate meta-analysis, according to illness phase and cerebral region(25, 49–110). The NOS score ranged from 2 to 6 and the mean was 5.43, which suggests that the quality of the included studies was good on average (Supplementary Table 13).
3.1. Studies characteristics
Characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. We included 62 studies: 37 studies measured NAA levels as Cr scaling, the rest (n=25) as absolute concentration. 29 studies were performed at a magnetic field strength of 1.5T, 29 studies at 3T, 2 studies at 7T, 1 at 4T and 1 at 2.1T. MRI protocols and methodological information, including measurement technique and parameters, for each study are described in Table 1.
Three studies analyzed patients in total remission(25, 54, 68), 7 studies analyzed geriatric subjects(25, 56, 62, 66, 78, 85, 100), and 1 study patients with age > 50 years(70). One study analyzed post-partum depression(86). One study analyzed subjects with type 2 diabetes(50), 4 studies analyzed subjects with comorbid Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment(66, 77, 85, 100), 1 study analyzed subjects with migraine(82) and 1 study subjects with chronic back pain(64).
In Table 2 we report the results of the meta-analyses, while the main results are visually summarized in Figure 2. In the following paragraphs, we summarize the results in FED and in cMDD. The detailed results, including forest plots, influence analyses, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and p-curve plots, are presented in Supplementary Figures 1-51.
3.2. First episode depression
We extracted information on NAA in 242 FED patients and 128 HC. We could not pool effect sizes in any brain region, since we retrieved a single study for each brain region (i.e. DLPFC and mPFC, PFC, ACC, FWM, medial temporal region, hippocampus, and thalamus). Primary studies showed significantly lower NAA concentrations in FEP than controls in the thalamus (n = 1, Hedges’ g = −2.789, 95% CI −3.580 to −2.016) and FWM (n = 1, Hedges’ g = −0.793, 95% CI −1.483 to −0.104).
3.3. Chronic Major Depression Disorder
NAA levels were measured in 1308 patients with cMDD and 1114 HC. Relative to controls, cMDD patients had significantly lower cortical NAA levels, in the frontal lobe (n = 26, Hedges’ g = −0.330, 95% CI −0.598 to −0.062; p = 0.018; Q = 102.84, I² = 75.7%, p < 0.001), and the occipital lobe (n = 4, Hedges’ g = −0.677, 95% CI −1.013 to −0.341; p = 0.007; Q = 1.39, I² = 0%, p = 0.707). Sub-analyses in frontal lobe subregions - DLPFC, PFC, and mPFC-did not show any difference between cMDD and controls. A single study compared NAA levels in the insula between cMDD and controls (n = 1, Hedges’ g = −2.949, 95% CI −4.093 to −1.805)(80). There were no significant differences between cMDD patients and HC in the parietal lobe, temporal lobe, and limbic lobe.
Lower NAA levels were also found within the white matter (WM), both in the FWM (n = 6, Hedges’ g = −0.471, 95% CI −0.891 to −0.052; p = 0.034; Q = 7.71, I² = 35.1%, p = 0.173) and in the PVWM (n = 3, Hedges’ g = −0.478, 95% CI −0.938 to −0.018; p = 0.047; Q = 0.49, I² = 0%, p = 0.784).
Finally, we observed some evidence of a difference in NAA levels between cMDD patients and controls in subcortical structures. In the thalamus, the meta-analysis of the 5 included studies could not detect any significant difference (n = 5, Hedges’ g = −0.423, 95% CI −1.085 to 0.234; p = 0.150; Q = 8.95, I² = 55.3%, p = 0.062). The results became significant after removal of one influencing study (n = 4, Hedges’ g = −0.673, 95% CI −1.108 to −0.238; p = 0.016; Q = 1.49, I² = 0%, p = 0.686)(105). A single primary study showed an increase in NAA levels in the pons of cMDD patients as compared to controls (n = 1, Hedges’ g = 0.907, 95% CI 0.089 to 1.726). No significant differences were found in the BG and cerebellum.
When sensitivity analysis based on the leave-one-out method found studies heavily distorting the meta-analytical estimates (i.e. in the occipital lobe and hippocampus), the pooled effect size remained significant after re-running the meta-analysis omitting the influential studies (Table 2).
3.3.1. Sensitivity analysis for the effect of antidepressants on NAA levels in cMDD patients
Sensitivity analyses for the effect of antidepressants on meta-analytical estimates were conducted when at least 4 studies were available for each of the subgroups (i.e. patients treated or not with antidepressants), i.e., in the frontal lobe and BG. Results are summarized in Supplementary Table 12 and Supplementary Figure 51.
3.3.1.1. Frontal lobe
The studies that did not specify whether patients were under antidepressant treatment or not (n = 2) were excluded from the analysis. Thus, 24 studies were finally included, of which 7 allowed antidepressant drugs, while 17 were on patients not taking antidepressant drugs. The difference in NAA levels between cMDD patients and HC remained significant only in the subgroup of studies not allowing antidepressant drugs (n = 17, Hedges’ g = 0.373, 95% CI 0.110 to 0.636, p within subgroup = 0.005). Of note, a significant between-group heterogeneity could not be demonstrated (p between subgroups = 0.900;), likely due to the overall large heterogeneity (Q = 102.84, I² = 75.7%, p < 0.0001) (Supplementary Table 12).
3.3.1.2. Basal ganglia
The studies that did not specify whether patients were under antidepressant treatment or not (n = 2) were excluded from the analysis. Thus, 8 studies were included, of which 4 allowed antidepressant drugs while 4 were on patients not taking antidepressant drugs. No significant difference emerged between subgroups (pbetween subgroups= 0.990; Supplementary Table 12).
3.3.2. Other subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and meta-regressions in cMDD patients
The frontal lobe, ACC and BG had enough studies to conduct subgroup analyses. None of the categorical clinical and methodological moderators significantly modified any analyses in these brain regions, as shown in Supplementary Tables 4-11.
As shown in Supplementary Figure 4 and 10, the only continuous moderator that significantly, albeit slightly, affected the meta-analytical estimates was publication year, with effect sizes growing more negative in more recent studies.
The sensitivity analysis on the influence of geriatric populations did not uncover significant changes in the results in each brain region after the exclusion of geriatric patients (Supplementary Results).
3.3.3. Publication bias
The inspection of the funnel plots did not suggest the presence of publication bias for any of the brain regions analyzed but the FWM, where a certain asymmetry could be observed, with small studies having non-significant positive effect sizes missing (Supplementary Figure 48). However, there were not enough studies to conduct the Egger’s test or p-curve analysis. Egger’s tests were non-significant for all the analyses, indicating the absence of publication bias. The only p-curve plot not showing a rightward skew in p-values (i.e., the pattern associated with true effects) was the DLPFC (Supplementary Figure 12).
4. Discussion
In this study, we compared NAA levels in broad brain regions between patients with MDD and HC, while also considering factors that can affect NAA levels, such as disease stage (FED versus cMDD) and severity, age, medication status, and 1H-MRS-related methodological factors. With medium effect sizes, NAA levels were decreased within the frontal and occipital lobe, the thalamus, FWM, and PVWM in patients with cMDD as compared to HC. We highlighted a gap of knowledge regarding NAA levels in FED, which needs to be addressed to elucidate if NAA can be considered a marker of MDD neuroprogression. We observed that NAA levels were lower within the frontal lobe in unmedicated patients with cMDD as compared to HC, while no significant differences were found between medicated patients and HC. None of the clinical or 1H-MRS-related methodological moderators had a significant impact on the effect sizes. We found however a relationship between the effect sizes of NAA levels in the frontal lobe and publication year, with effects sizes growing more negative (i.e. lower NAA levels in patients with cMDD than controls) in recent studies.
Previous analyses of 1H-MRS-derived NAA levels in MDD found no convincing evidence of cerebral NAA alterations in MDD(20, 111). Contrary to what we show here, two previous reports could not demonstrate a reduction of NAA levels in the frontal lobe of patients with MDD as compared to HC, either because their analysis lacked power (n = 8 and n = 11 versus n = 26) or because more negative effect sizes emerged from more recent studies(20) (111). Our findings expand and confirm their negative findings within the BG(20).
NAA is broadly regarded as a marker of neuronal integrity and trophism. While historically considered a disorder of monoamine unbalance(112), the pathophysiology of MDD now appears to include deficiency in neuronal plasticity, and neuronal and astro-glial atrophy(113–115). More recently, NAA has been proposed as a marker of neuronal metabolic function(7). Using functional MRI and PET, hypoactivity/hypometabolism has been demonstrated in MDD patients within several brain regions(19, 116). Our findings of reduced NAA levels in the aforementioned brain regions thus converge with the existing evidence supporting impairment or abnormalities in the frontal and occipital(117–120) lobe, insula(121), thalamus(122–125), and WM(126, 127) in MDD. In particular, we found evidence for significantly reduced NAA levels in both the frontal lobe and the FWM in cMDD. The only study reporting on NAA levels in the FWM in FED patients showed a significant reduction. These findings are in line with solid evidence arguing for dysfunction of circuits involving the frontal lobe in MDD(117), which, critically, may underlie pivotal MDD symptoms such as anhedonia symptom(128) or rumination(23, 129). In fact, anhedonia has been linked with dysfunction in the reward circuits involving the frontal lobe(130–132). Similarly, a meta-analysis(133) showed that alterations in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex subsystem of the Default Mode Network (DMN) may be a neural substrate of rumination, and a recent dynamic-FC transdiagnostic study on unipolar and bipolar depression highlighted that clinical depression levels modulated DMN duration, i.e. the time during which brain activity takes on a configuration corresponding to the DMN(134).
In our subgroup analysis of the effect of antidepressant treatment, we observed that NAA levels were lower within the frontal lobe in unmedicated patients with cMDD as compared to HC, while no significant differences were found between medicated patients and HC. This finding may suggest that antidepressant treatment could modify cerebral NAA levels. Several lines of preclinical and clinical evidence support that antidepressant administration may reverse neurobiological changes associated with MDD(114). However, the effect of antidepressant treatment on NAA levels has been investigated by a few original articles(58, 100, 108) with inconclusive results due to the small sample size.
4.1. Strengths and limitations
Our meta-analysis has several strengths. First, we separately analyzed FED and cMDD in order to discriminate if NAA should be considered a marker of either vulnerability or neurodegenerative processes in MDD. We highlighted a knowledge gap regarding NAA levels in FED. We could only retrieve one study per brain area, which did not allow to draw conclusions on whether cerebral NAA levels vary with MDD progression. Future longitudinal studies are needed to better elucidate whether NAA may represent an early biomarker of MDD neuroprogression. Understanding the pathophysiology underlying NAA alterations in MDD might help build an integrated clinicopathological staging model for MDD, with important clinical implications.
On the other hand, we had a reasonable sample size and statistical power to obtain significant findings in multiple brain regions in cMDD. As we were expecting high heterogeneity, we used a random-effects model which is highly robust to heterogeneity. We found significant moderate to high heterogeneity in all the global effect size estimates but the occipital lobe, the cerebellum, the FWM and the PVWM. After removal of outliers or influential studies, null or low heterogeneity remained in the hippocampus, thalamus and BG, while heterogeneity remained significant and moderate in the frontal lobe and ACC. Removal of outliers or influential studies had no major impact on our findings, except for the analysis of thalamic NAA levels in cMDD that went from non-significant to significant. We analyzed the impact of several categorical and continuous moderators on the effect sizes by means of subgroup analyses and meta-regressions. We defined an a-priori requirement for four datapoints per subgroup analysis and ten datapoints per meta-regression, so as to have enough statistical power to detect significant effects. However, the only moderator with a significant relationship with the effect sizes was the publication year. Therefore, heterogeneity in the frontal lobe and ACC remained largely unexplained. In particular, none of the methodological moderators influenced our findings.
It has been hypothesized that lower NAA levels found in patients with psychotic disorders (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder) may not reflect truly reduced NAA concentrations, but that they may rather be an effect of abnormal T2 relaxation times in these populations(135). There is limited evidence that MDD, too, may be associated with abnormal MRI T2 relaxation times in certain brain regions(96). Thus, to exclude that this might be the case also in MDD patients, we used meta-regressions to evaluate TE influence as a modifier of NAA levels in the frontal lobe, DLPFC, ACC and BG and found non-significant associations.
4.2. Conclusions
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that cMDD is associated with decreased NAA levels in the frontal and occipital lobes, thalamus, FWM, and PVWM. Due to the small number of studies reporting NAA levels in FED, we could not establish if NAA alterations are already present in the early stages of the disease. We found preliminary evidence that antidepressant treatment may reverse NAA alterations in the frontal lobe. Our findings support the hypometabolism hypothesis of depression. NAA is easily measured also at lower and more available MRI field strengths(7), thus representing a promising candidate as a biomarker of MDD and treatment response.
Funding
This work was supported by the University of Pisa, Fondi di Ateneo 2019 to G.R. G.R. is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the MSC grant agreement n° 101026235.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020221050
Availability of Data and Materials
Data and materials will be provided upon request.
Disclosures
The authors have no competing financial interests in relation to the work described. The present work was published on medRxiv as a preprint.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information is available at the website of Biological Psychiatry.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Noël Harris for her valuable help in proof-reading the manuscript.
REFERENCES
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.↵
- 55.
- 56.↵
- 57.
- 58.↵
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.↵
- 63.
- 64.↵
- 65.
- 66.↵
- 67.
- 68.↵
- 69.
- 70.↵
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.
- 80.↵
- 81.
- 82.↵
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.↵
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.↵
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.↵
- 106.
- 107.
- 108.↵
- 109.
- 110.↵
- 111.↵
- 112.↵
- 113.↵
- 114.↵
- 115.↵
- 116.↵
- 117.↵
- 118.
- 119.
- 120.↵
- 121.↵
- 122.↵
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.↵
- 126.↵
- 127.↵
- 128.↵
- 129.↵
- 130.↵
- 131.
- 132.↵
- 133.↵
- 134.↵
- 135.↵