Brett A Clementz1, John A Sweeney1, Jordan P Hamm1, Elena I Ivleva1, Lauren E Ethridge1, Godfrey D Pearlson1, Matcheri S Keshavan1, Carol A Tamminga1. 1. From the Departments of Psychology and Neuroscience, Bio-Imaging Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens; the Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; the Departments of Psychiatry and Neurobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and the Institute of Living, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn.; and the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical phenomenology remains the primary means for classifying psychoses despite considerable evidence that this method incompletely captures biologically meaningful differentiations. Rather than relying on clinical diagnoses as the gold standard, this project drew on neurobiological heterogeneity among psychosis cases to delineate subgroups independent of their phenomenological manifestations. METHOD: A large biomarker panel (neuropsychological, stop signal, saccadic control, and auditory stimulation paradigms) characterizing diverse aspects of brain function was collected on individuals with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder with psychosis (N=711), their first-degree relatives (N=883), and demographically comparable healthy subjects (N=278). Biomarker variance across paradigms was exploited to create nine integrated variables that were used to capture neurobiological variance among the psychosis cases. Data on external validating measures (social functioning, structural magnetic resonance imaging, family biomarkers, and clinical information) were collected. RESULTS: Multivariate taxometric analyses identified three neurobiologically distinct psychosis biotypes that did not respect clinical diagnosis boundaries. The same analysis procedure using clinical DSM diagnoses as the criteria was best described by a single severity continuum (schizophrenia worse than schizoaffective disorder worse than bipolar psychosis); this was not the case for biotypes. The external validating measures supported the distinctiveness of these subgroups compared with clinical diagnosis, highlighting a possible advantage of neurobiological versus clinical categorization schemes for differentiating psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These data illustrate how multiple pathways may lead to clinically similar psychosis manifestations, and they provide explanations for the marked heterogeneity observed across laboratories on the same biomarker variables when DSM diagnoses are used as the gold standard.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical phenomenology remains the primary means for classifying psychoses despite considerable evidence that this method incompletely captures biologically meaningful differentiations. Rather than relying on clinical diagnoses as the gold standard, this project drew on neurobiological heterogeneity among psychosis cases to delineate subgroups independent of their phenomenological manifestations. METHOD: A large biomarker panel (neuropsychological, stop signal, saccadic control, and auditory stimulation paradigms) characterizing diverse aspects of brain function was collected on individuals with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder with psychosis (N=711), their first-degree relatives (N=883), and demographically comparable healthy subjects (N=278). Biomarker variance across paradigms was exploited to create nine integrated variables that were used to capture neurobiological variance among the psychosis cases. Data on external validating measures (social functioning, structural magnetic resonance imaging, family biomarkers, and clinical information) were collected. RESULTS: Multivariate taxometric analyses identified three neurobiologically distinct psychosis biotypes that did not respect clinical diagnosis boundaries. The same analysis procedure using clinical DSM diagnoses as the criteria was best described by a single severity continuum (schizophrenia worse than schizoaffective disorder worse than bipolar psychosis); this was not the case for biotypes. The external validating measures supported the distinctiveness of these subgroups compared with clinical diagnosis, highlighting a possible advantage of neurobiological versus clinical categorization schemes for differentiating psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These data illustrate how multiple pathways may lead to clinically similar psychosis manifestations, and they provide explanations for the marked heterogeneity observed across laboratories on the same biomarker variables when DSM diagnoses are used as the gold standard.
Authors: James L Reilly; Margret S H Harris; Tin T Khine; Matcheri S Keshavan; John A Sweeney Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Carol A Tamminga; Elena I Ivleva; Matcheri S Keshavan; Godfrey D Pearlson; Brett A Clementz; Bradley Witte; David W Morris; Jeffrey Bishop; Gunvant K Thaker; John A Sweeney Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Sabin Khadka; Shashwath A Meda; Michael C Stevens; David C Glahn; Vince D Calhoun; John A Sweeney; Carol A Tamminga; Matcheri S Keshavan; Kasey O'Neil; David Schretlen; Godfrey D Pearlson Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Dag Alnæs; Tobias Kaufmann; Dennis van der Meer; Aldo Córdova-Palomera; Jaroslav Rokicki; Torgeir Moberget; Francesco Bettella; Ingrid Agartz; Deanna M Barch; Alessandro Bertolino; Christine L Brandt; Simon Cervenka; Srdjan Djurovic; Nhat Trung Doan; Sarah Eisenacher; Helena Fatouros-Bergman; Lena Flyckt; Annabella Di Giorgio; Beathe Haatveit; Erik G Jönsson; Peter Kirsch; Martina J Lund; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Giulio Pergola; Emanuel Schwarz; Olav B Smeland; Tiziana Quarto; Mathias Zink; Ole A Andreassen; Lars T Westlye Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Jeffrey S Bedwell; Christopher C Spencer; Chi C Chan; Pamela D Butler; Pejman Sehatpour; Joseph Schmidt Journal: Brain Res Date: 2018-03-03 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Lauren M Reynolds; Matthew Pokinko; Angélica Torres-Berrío; Santiago Cuesta; Laura C Lambert; Esther Del Cid Pellitero; Michael Wodzinski; Colleen Manitt; Paul Krimpenfort; Bryan Kolb; Cecilia Flores Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Nicholas T Van Dam; David O'Connor; Enitan T Marcelle; Erica J Ho; R Cameron Craddock; Russell H Tobe; Vilma Gabbay; James J Hudziak; F Xavier Castellanos; Bennett L Leventhal; Michael P Milham Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Glenn T Konopaske; Darrick T Balu; Kendall T Presti; Grace Chan; Francine M Benes; Joseph T Coyle Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.939