Sigal Zilcha-Mano1, Xi Zhu2, Benjamin Suarez-Jimenez2, Alison Pickover2, Shachaf Tal3, Sara Such4, Caroline Marohasy4, Marika Chrisanthopoulos5, Chloe Salzman5, Amit Lazarov6, Yuval Neria2, Bret R Rutherford5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. Electronic address: sigalzil@gmail.com. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York; New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. 4. New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 6. School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) has been commonly overlooked by studies examining resting-state functional connectivity patterns in PTSD. The current study used a data-driven approach to identify resting-state functional connectivity biomarkers to 1) differentiate individuals with PTSD (with or without MDD) from trauma-exposed healthy control subjects (TEHCs), 2) compare individuals with PTSD alone with those with comorbid PTSD+MDD, and 3) explore the clinical utility of the identified biomarkers by testing their associations with clinical symptoms and treatment response. METHODS: Resting-state magnetic resonance images were obtained from 51 individuals with PTSD alone, 52 individuals with PTSD+MDD, and 76 TEHCs. Of the 103 individuals with PTSD, 55 were enrolled in prolonged exposure treatment. A support vector machine model was used to identify resting-state functional connectivity biomarkers differentiating individuals with PTSD (with or without MDD) from TEHCs and differentiating individuals with PTSD alone from those with PTSD+MDD. The associations between the identified features and symptomatology were tested with Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The support vector machine model achieved 70.6% accuracy in discriminating between individuals with PTSD and TEHCs and achieved 76.7% accuracy in discriminating between individuals with PTSD alone and those with PTSD+MDD for out-of-sample prediction. Within-network connectivity in the executive control network, prefrontal network, and salience network discriminated individuals with PTSD from TEHCs. The basal ganglia network played an important role in differentiating individuals with PTSD alone from those with PTSD+MDD. PTSD scores were inversely correlated with within-executive control network connectivity (p < .001), and executive control network connectivity was positively correlated with treatment response (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that unique brain-based abnormalities differentiate individuals with PTSD from TEHCs, differentiate individuals with PTSD from those with PTSD+MDD, and demonstrate clinical utility in predicting levels of symptomatology and treatment response.
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) has been commonly overlooked by studies examining resting-state functional connectivity patterns in PTSD. The current study used a data-driven approach to identify resting-state functional connectivity biomarkers to 1) differentiate individuals with PTSD (with or without MDD) from trauma-exposed healthy control subjects (TEHCs), 2) compare individuals with PTSD alone with those with comorbid PTSD+MDD, and 3) explore the clinical utility of the identified biomarkers by testing their associations with clinical symptoms and treatment response. METHODS: Resting-state magnetic resonance images were obtained from 51 individuals with PTSD alone, 52 individuals with PTSD+MDD, and 76 TEHCs. Of the 103 individuals with PTSD, 55 were enrolled in prolonged exposure treatment. A support vector machine model was used to identify resting-state functional connectivity biomarkers differentiating individuals with PTSD (with or without MDD) from TEHCs and differentiating individuals with PTSD alone from those with PTSD+MDD. The associations between the identified features and symptomatology were tested with Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The support vector machine model achieved 70.6% accuracy in discriminating between individuals with PTSD and TEHCs and achieved 76.7% accuracy in discriminating between individuals with PTSD alone and those with PTSD+MDD for out-of-sample prediction. Within-network connectivity in the executive control network, prefrontal network, and salience network discriminated individuals with PTSD from TEHCs. The basal ganglia network played an important role in differentiating individuals with PTSD alone from those with PTSD+MDD. PTSD scores were inversely correlated with within-executive control network connectivity (p < .001), and executive control network connectivity was positively correlated with treatment response (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that unique brain-based abnormalities differentiate individuals with PTSD from TEHCs, differentiate individuals with PTSD from those with PTSD+MDD, and demonstrate clinical utility in predicting levels of symptomatology and treatment response.
Authors: Vanessa M Brown; Kevin S LaBar; Courtney C Haswell; Andrea L Gold; Gregory McCarthy; Rajendra A Morey Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: C Jin; R Qi; Y Yin; X Hu; L Duan; Q Xu; Z Zhang; Y Zhong; B Feng; H Xiang; Q Gong; Y Liu; G Lu; L Li Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Anthony P King; Stefanie R Block; Rebecca K Sripada; Sheila Rauch; Nicholas Giardino; Todd Favorite; Michael Angstadt; Daniel Kessler; Robert Welsh; Israel Liberzon Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Roseann F Titcombe-Parekh; Jingyun Chen; Nadia Rahman; Nicole Kouri; Meng Qian; Meng Li; Richard A Bryant; Charles R Marmar; Adam D Brown Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Liat Helpman; Santiago Papini; Binod T Chhetry; Erel Shvil; Mikael Rubin; Gregory M Sullivan; John C Markowitz; J John Mann; Yuval Neria Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Dan J Stein; Katie A McLaughlin; Karestan C Koenen; Lukoye Atwoli; Matthew J Friedman; Eric D Hill; Andreas Maercker; Maria Petukhova; Victoria Shahly; Mark van Ommeren; Jordi Alonso; Guilherme Borges; Giovanni de Girolamo; Peter de Jonge; Koen Demyttenaere; Silvia Florescu; Elie G Karam; Norito Kawakami; Herbert Matschinger; Michail Okoliyski; Jose Posada-Villa; Kate M Scott; Maria Carmen Viana; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Patrick A F Laing; Trevor Steward; Christopher G Davey; Kim L Felmingham; Miguel Angel Fullana; Bram Vervliet; Matthew D Greaves; Bradford Moffat; Rebecca K Glarin; Ben J Harrison Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.709
Authors: Jing Yang; Du Lei; Kun Qin; Walter H L Pinaya; Xueling Suo; Wenbin Li; Lingjiang Li; Graham J Kemp; Qiyong Gong Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Remko van Lutterveld; Tim Varkevisser; Karlijn Kouwer; Sanne J H van Rooij; Mitzy Kennis; Martine Hueting; Simone van Montfort; Edwin van Dellen; Elbert Geuze Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 3.473