| Literature DB >> 33324262 |
Rongxin Zhu1, Shui Tian2,3, Huan Wang2,3, Haiteng Jiang1, Xinyi Wang2,3, Junneng Shao2,3, Qiang Wang4, Rui Yan1, Shiwan Tao1, Haiyan Liu1, Zhijian Yao1,2,4, Qing Lu2,3.
Abstract
Bipolar II disorder (BD-II) major depression episode is highly associated with suicidality, and objective neural biomarkers could be key elements to assist in early prevention and intervention. This study aimed to integrate altered brain functionality in the frontolimbic system and machine learning techniques to classify suicidal BD-II patients and predict suicidality risk at the individual level. A cohort of 169 participants were enrolled, including 43 BD-II depression patients with at least one suicide attempt during a current depressive episode (SA), 62 BD-II depression patients without a history of attempted suicide (NSA), and 64 demographically matched healthy controls (HCs). We compared resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in the frontolimbic system among the three groups and explored the correlation between abnormal rsFCs and the level of suicide risk (assessed using the Nurses' Global Assessment of Suicide Risk, NGASR) in SA patients. Then, we applied support vector machines (SVMs) to classify SA vs. NSA in BD-II patients and predicted the risk of suicidality. SA patients showed significantly decreased frontolimbic rsFCs compared to NSA patients. The left amygdala-right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part) rsFC was negatively correlated with NGASR in the SA group, but not the severity of depressive or anxiety symptoms. Using frontolimbic rsFCs as features, the SVMs obtained an overall 84% classification accuracy in distinguishing SA and NSA. A significant correlation was observed between the SVMs-predicted NGASR and clinical assessed NGASR (r = 0.51, p = 0.001). Our results demonstrated that decreased rsFCs in the frontolimbic system might be critical objective features of suicidality in BD-II patients, and could be useful for objective prediction of suicidality risk in individuals.Entities:
Keywords: bipolar II disorder; frontolimbic system; resting-state functional connectivity; suicide attempt; support vector machine
Year: 2020 PMID: 33324262 PMCID: PMC7725800 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.597770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants.
| Numbers of subjects | 37 | 53 | 62 | — | |
| Age, mean (SD), year | 28.51 (8.95) | 30.75 (10.11) | 32.82 (9.84) | 2.29 | 0.105 |
| Education, mean (SD), year | 13.73 (3.29) | 14.26 (2.85) | 15.36 (2.73) | 4.07 | 0.019 |
| Course of disease mean (SD), month | 74.70 (69.95) | 66.94 (66.42) | 0.53 | 0.595 | |
| Gender, male/female | 10M/27F | 20M/33F | 28M/34F | 3.48 | 0.175 |
| marital status (Y/N) | 13/24 | 23/30 | 34/28 | 3.51 | 0.173 |
| Seasonal characteristics(Y/N) | 2/35 | 1/53 | — | ||
| Age of onset mean (SD), year | 22.24 (8.34) | 25.00 (9.76) | −1.40 | 0.166 | |
| Family history of mental disorder, Y/N | 13/24 | 21/32 | 0.19 | 0.666 | |
| Family history of suicide, Y/N | 0/37 | 3/50 | — | ||
| Polarity of first episode (depression/hypomania) | 32/5 | 39/14 | 2.18 | 0.140 | |
| Scores of HAMD-17 | 22.54 (3.60) | 21.39 (2.71) | 1.61 | 0.114 | |
| Scores of HAMD-16 (without 3, suicide) | 19.40 (3.36) | 19.45 (2.48) | −0.08 | 0.939 | |
| Scores of HAMA | 14.91 (6.21) | 17.39 (8.23) | −1.47 | 0.147 | |
| Combined somatic disorder (Y/N) | 11/26 | 14/39 | 0.12 | 0.730 | |
| Psychotic characteristics (Y/N) | 6/31 | 7/46 | 0.16 | 0.690 | |
| Occupation (Y/N) | 27/10 | 39/14 | 0.00 | 0.948 | |
| Number of episodes of depression | 3.51 (2.78) | 2.92 (1.72) | 1.24 | 0.217 | |
| Number of episodes of hypomania | 2.30 (2.83) | 2.19 (1.91) | 0.22 | 0.828 | |
| Rapid cycling (Y/N) | 11/26 | 13/40 | 0.30 | 0.583 | |
| Comorbid substance abuse/dependence | 6/31 | 3/50 | — | ||
| Total score of NGASR | 12.62 (2.96) | 7.30 (3.08) | 8.20 | 0.000 |
HAMD-17, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; NGASR, Nurses' Global Assessment of Suicide Risk.
Univariate ANOVA.
Two-sample t test.
Pearson Chi-square test.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.001.
Figure 1Frontolimbic rsFCs comparisons between SA, NSA, and HCs. The significantly different resting-state functional connectivity between suicide attempters and non-suicide attempters was shown for the left amygdala as the seed region (A) and the right amygdala as the seed region (B). In addition, the mean FCs among three groups were shown as box plotted as well (right panel). The significances of all comparisons were FDR corrected. ***p < 0.001. HC, healthy controls; NSA, bipolar II disorder depression patients without suicidal attempt; SA, bipolar II disorder depression patients with suicide attempt; AMY.L, left amygdala; AMY.R, right amygdala; ORBsup.R, right superior frontal gyrus (dorsolateral); ORBmid.R, right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part); PCG.L, left posterior cingulate gyrus; PCG.R, right posterior cingulate gyrus; PHG.L, left parahippocampal gyrus; CAU.L, left caudate nucleus.
Figure 2Correlation between left amygdala-right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part) rsFC and clinical characteristics in BD-II depression patients with suicide attempts. (A) The left amygdala-right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part) rsFC showed a significant negative correlation with suicide risk (measured by NGASR score). FCs were Fisher z-transformed and relationship was analyzed using partial correlation controlling for age, education, mean FD factors and HAMD-16 score (without three-item, suicide). (B) There was no association between the left amygdala-right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part) rsFC and the severity of depressive symptoms (measured by HAMD-16 scores, without suicide-item), or (C) severity of anxiety symptoms (measured by HAMA score). NGASR, Nurses' Global Assessment of Suicide Risk; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; AMY.L, left amygdala; ORBmid.R, right middle frontal gyrus (orbital part).
Figure 3Classification performance between SA and NSA patients using support vector machine. (A) Classification confusion matrices. Each row of the matrix represents the occurrences in an actual class, while each column represents the occurrences in a predicted class. (B) Classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for NSA and SA, respectively.
Figure 4NGASR values estimated using the support vector regression model in SA patients. The predictive performance was evaluated by Spearman correlation between the predicted NGASR values and professionally evaluated NGASR values. The correlation between the predicted NGASR values and the professional NGASR values was significant.