Katherine A Grisanzio1,2, Andrea N Goldstein-Piekarski1,2, Michelle Yuyun Wang3, Abdullah P Rashed Ahmed4, Zoe Samara1,2, Leanne M Williams1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 2. Sierra-Pacific Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 3. Brain Resource International Database, Brain Resource Ltd, Woolloomooloo, Sydney, Australia. 4. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, California.
Abstract
Importance: The symptoms that define mood, anxiety, and trauma disorders are highly overlapping across disorders and heterogeneous within disorders. It is unknown whether coherent subtypes exist that span multiple diagnoses and are expressed functionally (in underlying cognition and brain function) and clinically (in daily function). The identification of cohesive subtypes would help disentangle the symptom overlap in our current diagnoses and serve as a tool for tailoring treatment choices. Objective: To propose and demonstrate 1 approach for identifying subtypes within a transdiagnostic sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the Brain Research and Integrative Neuroscience Network Foundation Database that had been collected at the University of Sydney and University of Adelaide between 2006 and 2010 and replicated at Stanford University between 2013 and 2017. The study included 420 individuals with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (n = 100), panic disorder (n = 53), posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 47), or no disorder (healthy control participants) (n = 220). Data were analyzed between October 2016 and October 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: We followed a data-driven approach to achieve the primary study outcome of identifying transdiagnostic subtypes. First, machine learning with a hierarchical clustering algorithm was implemented to classify participants based on self-reported negative mood, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Second, the robustness and generalizability of the subtypes were tested in an independent sample. Third, we assessed whether symptom subtypes were expressed at behavioral and physiological levels of functioning. Fourth, we evaluated the clinically meaningful differences in functional capacity of the subtypes. Findings were interpreted relative to a complementary diagnostic frame of reference. Results: Four hundred twenty participants with a mean (SD) age of 39.8 (14.1) years were included in the final analysis; 256 (61.0%) were female. We identified 6 distinct subtypes characterized by tension (n=81; 19%), anxious arousal (n=55; 13%), general anxiety (n=38; 9%), anhedonia (n=29; 7%), melancholia (n=37; 9%), and normative mood (n=180; 43%), and these subtypes were replicated in an independent sample. Subtypes were expressed through differences in cognitive control (F5,383 = 5.13, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.063), working memory (F5,401 = 3.29, P = .006, ηp2 = 0.039), electroencephalography-recorded β power in a resting paradigm (F5,357 = 3.84, P = .002, ηp2 = 0.051), electroencephalography-recorded β power in an emotional paradigm (F5,365 = 3.56, P = .004, ηp2 = 0.047), social functional capacity (F5,414 = 21.33, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.205), and emotional resilience (F5,376 = 15.10, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.171). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings offer a data-driven framework for identifying robust subtypes that signify specific, coherent, meaningful associations between symptoms, behavior, brain function, and observable real-world function, and that cut across DSM-IV-defined diagnoses of major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Importance: The symptoms that define mood, anxiety, and trauma disorders are highly overlapping across disorders and heterogeneous within disorders. It is unknown whether coherent subtypes exist that span multiple diagnoses and are expressed functionally (in underlying cognition and brain function) and clinically (in daily function). The identification of cohesive subtypes would help disentangle the symptom overlap in our current diagnoses and serve as a tool for tailoring treatment choices. Objective: To propose and demonstrate 1 approach for identifying subtypes within a transdiagnostic sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the Brain Research and Integrative Neuroscience Network Foundation Database that had been collected at the University of Sydney and University of Adelaide between 2006 and 2010 and replicated at Stanford University between 2013 and 2017. The study included 420 individuals with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (n = 100), panic disorder (n = 53), posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 47), or no disorder (healthy control participants) (n = 220). Data were analyzed between October 2016 and October 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: We followed a data-driven approach to achieve the primary study outcome of identifying transdiagnostic subtypes. First, machine learning with a hierarchical clustering algorithm was implemented to classify participants based on self-reported negative mood, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Second, the robustness and generalizability of the subtypes were tested in an independent sample. Third, we assessed whether symptom subtypes were expressed at behavioral and physiological levels of functioning. Fourth, we evaluated the clinically meaningful differences in functional capacity of the subtypes. Findings were interpreted relative to a complementary diagnostic frame of reference. Results: Four hundred twenty participants with a mean (SD) age of 39.8 (14.1) years were included in the final analysis; 256 (61.0%) were female. We identified 6 distinct subtypes characterized by tension (n=81; 19%), anxious arousal (n=55; 13%), general anxiety (n=38; 9%), anhedonia (n=29; 7%), melancholia (n=37; 9%), and normative mood (n=180; 43%), and these subtypes were replicated in an independent sample. Subtypes were expressed through differences in cognitive control (F5,383 = 5.13, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.063), working memory (F5,401 = 3.29, P = .006, ηp2 = 0.039), electroencephalography-recorded β power in a resting paradigm (F5,357 = 3.84, P = .002, ηp2 = 0.051), electroencephalography-recorded β power in an emotional paradigm (F5,365 = 3.56, P = .004, ηp2 = 0.047), social functional capacity (F5,414 = 21.33, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.205), and emotional resilience (F5,376 = 15.10, P < .001, ηp2 = 0.171). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings offer a data-driven framework for identifying robust subtypes that signify specific, coherent, meaningful associations between symptoms, behavior, brain function, and observable real-world function, and that cut across DSM-IV-defined diagnoses of major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Authors: C Richard Clark; Robert H Paul; Leanne M Williams; Martijn Arns; Kamran Fallahpour; Carolyn Handmer; Evian Gordon Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Rebecca B Price; Kathleen Gates; Thomas E Kraynak; Michael E Thase; Greg J Siegle Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Leanne M Williams; Daniel F Hermens; Thida Thein; C Richard Clark; Nicholas J Cooper; Simon D Clarke; Chris Lamb; Evian Gordon; Michael R Kohn Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Kathleen R Merikangas; Ellen E Walters Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-06
Authors: Y Milaneschi; F Lamers; W J Peyrot; A Abdellaoui; G Willemsen; J-J Hottenga; R Jansen; H Mbarek; A Dehghan; C Lu; D I Boomsma; B W J H Penninx Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Andrew T Drysdale; Logan Grosenick; Jonathan Downar; Katharine Dunlop; Farrokh Mansouri; Yue Meng; Robert N Fetcho; Benjamin Zebley; Desmond J Oathes; Amit Etkin; Alan F Schatzberg; Keith Sudheimer; Jennifer Keller; Helen S Mayberg; Faith M Gunning; George S Alexopoulos; Michael D Fox; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Henning U Voss; B J Casey; Marc J Dubin; Conor Liston Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Taciana G Costa Dias; Swathi P Iyer; Samuel D Carpenter; Robert P Cary; Vanessa B Wilson; Suzanne H Mitchell; Joel T Nigg; Damien A Fair Journal: Dev Cogn Neurosci Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.464
Authors: Antonia N Kaczkurkin; Aristeidis Sotiras; Erica B Baller; Ran Barzilay; Monica E Calkins; Ganesh B Chand; Zaixu Cui; Guray Erus; Yong Fan; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur; Tyler M Moore; David R Roalf; Adon F G Rosen; Kosha Ruparel; Russell T Shinohara; Erdem Varol; Daniel H Wolf; Christos Davatzikos; Theodore D Satterthwaite Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Negar Fani; Tricia Z King; Cherita Clendinen; Raven A Hardy; Sindhuja Surapaneni; James R Blair; Stuart F White; Abigail Powers; Tim D Ely; Tanja Jovanovic; Kerry J Ressler; Bekh Bradley Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Marco Solmi; Natascia Brondino; Cathy Davies; Chungil Chae; Pierluigi Politi; Stefan Borgwardt; Stephen M Lawrie; Josef Parnas; Philip McGuire Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 49.548