Abstract
Cognitive abilities are often associated with mental health across different disorders, beginning in childhood. However, the extent to which the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health is represented in part by different neurobiological units of analysis, such as multimodal neuroimaging and polygenic scores (PGS), remains unclear. Using large-scale data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, we first quantified the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health in children aged 9-10. Our multivariate models revealed that mental health variables could predict cognitive abilities with an out-of-sample correlation of approximately .4. In a series of separate commonality analyses, we found that this relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health was primarily represented by multimodal neuroimaging (66%) and, to a lesser extent, by polygenic scores (PGS) (21%). This multimodal neuroimaging was based on multivariate models predicting cognitive abilities from 45 types of brain MRI (such as, task fMRI contrasts, resting-state fMRI, structural MRI, and diffusion tensor imaging), while the PGS was based on previous genome-wide association studies on cognitive abilities. Additionally, we also found that environmental factors accounted for 63% of the variance in the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health. These environmental factors included socio-demographics (e.g., parent’s income and education), lifestyles (e.g., extracurricular activities, sleep) and developmental adverse events (e.g., parental use of alcohol/tobacco, pregnancy complications). The multimodal neuroimaging and PGS then explained 58% and 21% of the variance due to environmental factors, respectively. Notably, these patterns remained stable over two years. Accordingly, our findings underscore the significance of neurobiological units of analysis for cognitive abilities, as measured by multimodal neuroimaging and PGS, in understanding a) the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health and b) the variance in this relationship that was shared with environmental factors.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive DevelopmentSM (ABCD) Study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). This is a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 10,000 children age 9-10 and follow them over 10 years into early adulthood. The ABCD Study is supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041048, U01DA050989, U01DA051016, U01DA041022, U01DA051018, U01DA051037, U01DA050987, U01DA041174, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041028, U01DA041134, U01DA050988, U01DA051039, U01DA041156, U01DA041025, U01DA041120, U01DA051038, U01DA041148, U01DA041093, U01DA041089, U24DA041123, U24DA041147. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners.html. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/consortium_members/. ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or ABCD consortium investigators. The ABCD data repository grows and changes over time. The ABCD data used in this report came from DOI:10.15154/z563-zd24. The authors wish to acknowledge the use of New Zealand eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) high performance computing facilities, consulting support and/or training services as part of this research. New Zealand's national facilities are provided by NeSI and funded jointly by NeSI's collaborator institutions and through the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment’s Research Infrastructure programme. URL https://www.nesi.org.nz. Yue Wang and Narun Pat were supported by Health Research Council Funding (21/618), the Neurological Foundation of New Zealand (grant number 2350 PRG) and the University of Otago.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We used publicly available ABCD 5.1 data (DOI: 10.15154/z563-zd24) provided by the ABCD study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/abcd/).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The focus of the manuscript has shifted from validating the RDoC to exploring the extent to which the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health is represented by cognitive abilities at the neural and genetic levels of analysis. We rewrote the majority of the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion (along with Results and Methods and Materials) to reframe the manuscript. Additionally, we justified our focus on a large normative sample of children in the current study. We also reanalysed the data using the most up-to-date version of the dataset, added control variables in our commonality analysis, and narrowed the definition of mental health to include only the mental health of participants, not caretakers. Overall, the patterns of the results remain the same.
Data Availability
We used publicly available ABCD 5.1 data (DOI: 10.15154/z563-zd24) provided by the ABCD study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/abcd/). We uploaded the R analysis script and detailed outputs here https://github.com/HAM-lab-Otago-University/Commonality-Analysis-ABCD5.1.
https://github.com/HAM-lab-Otago-University/Commonality-Analysis-ABCD5.1
