RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Separating Clinical and Subclinical Depression by Big Data Informed Structural Vulnerability Index and Its impact on Cognition: ENIGMA Dot Product
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.18.21263763
DO 10.1101/2021.09.18.21263763
A1 Kochunov, Peter
A1 Ma, Yizhou
A1 Hatch, Kathryn S.
A1 Schmaal, Lianne
A1 Jahanshad, Neda
A1 Thompson, Paul M.
A1 Adhikari, Bhim M.
A1 Bruce, Heather
A1 Chiappelli, Joshua
A1 Van der vaart, Andrew
A1 Goldwaser, Eric L.
A1 Sotiras, Aris
A1 Ma, Tianzhou
A1 Chen, Shuo
A1 Nichols, Thomas E.
A1 Hong, L. Elliot
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/22/2021.09.18.21263763.abstract
AB Big Data neuroimaging collaborations including Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) integrated worldwide data to identify regional brain deficits in major depressive disorder (MDD). We evaluated the sensitivity of translating ENIGMA-defined MDD deficit patterns to the individual level. We treated ENIGMA MDD deficit patterns as a vector to gauge the similarity between individual and MDD patterns by calculating ENIGMA dot product (EDP). We analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of EDP in separating subjects with (1) subclinical depressive symptoms without a diagnosis of MDD, (2) single episode MDD, (3) recurrent MDD, and (4) controls free of neuropsychiatric disorders. We compared EDP to the Quantile Regression Index (QRI; a linear alternative to the brain age metric) and the global gray matter thickness and subcortical volumes and fractional anisotropy (FA) of water diffusion. We performed this analysis in a large epidemiological sample of UK Biobank (UKBB) participants (N=17,053/19,265 M/F). Group-average increases in depressive symptoms from controls to recurrent MDD was mirrored by EDP (r2=0.85), followed by FA (r2=0.81) and QRI (r2=0.56). Subjects with MDD showed worse performance on cognitive tests than controls with deficits observed for 3 out of 9 cognitive tests administered by the UKBB. We calculated correlations of EDP and other brain indices with measures of cognitive performance in controls. The correlation pattern between EDP and cognition in controls was similar (r2=0.75) to the pattern of cognitive differences in MDD. This suggests that the elevation in EDP, even in controls, is associated with cognitive performance - specifically in the MDD-affected domains. That specificity was missing for QRI, FA or other brain imaging indices. In summary, translating anatomically informed meta-analytic indices of similarity using a linear vector approach led to better sensitivity to depressive symptoms and cognitive patterns than whole-brain imaging measurements or an index of accelerated aging.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the National Institutes of Health grants R01MH112180, R01MH116948, S10OD023696, R01EB015611, R01MH117601, R01AG095874, R01MH116147, and U01MH108148. These funding sources provided financial support to enable design and conduct of the study or collection, management, or analysis of the data. LS is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1140764) and a University of Melbourne Dame Kate Campbell fellowship. None of the funding agencies had a role in the interpretation of the data. None had a role in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. None had a role in the decision to submit the manuscript for publicationAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study has been exempt from IRB because it is classified as research that doesn't involve risks to human subjects.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData is available through UKBB and software is freely available as an R package