White matter microstructure and its relation to clinical features of obsessive–compulsive disorder: findings from the ENIGMA OCD Working Group

Microstructural alterations in cortico-subcortical connections are thought to be present in obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). However, prior studies have yielded inconsistent findings, perhaps because small sample sizes provided insufficient power to detect subtle abnormalities. Here we investigated microstructural white matter alterations and their relation to clinical features in the largest dataset of adult and pediatric OCD to date. We analyzed diffusion tensor imaging metrics from 700 adult patients and 645 adult controls, as well as 174 pediatric patients and 144 pediatric controls across 19 sites participating in the ENIGMA OCD Working Group, in a cross-sectional case-control magnetic resonance study. We extracted measures of fractional anisotropy (FA) as main outcome, and mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity, and axial diffusivity as secondary outcomes for 25 white matter regions. We meta-analyzed patient-control group differences (Cohen’s d) across sites, after adjusting for age and sex, and investigated associations with clinical characteristics. Adult OCD patients showed significant FA reduction in the sagittal stratum (d = −0.21, z = −3.21, p = 0.001) and posterior thalamic radiation (d = −0.26, z = −4.57, p < 0.0001). In the sagittal stratum, lower FA was associated with a younger age of onset (z = 2.71, p = 0.006), longer duration of illness (z = −2.086, p = 0.036), and a higher percentage of medicated patients in the cohorts studied (z = −1.98, p = 0.047). No significant association with symptom severity was found. Pediatric OCD patients did not show any detectable microstructural abnormalities compared to controls. Our findings of microstructural alterations in projection and association fibers to posterior brain regions in OCD are consistent with models emphasizing deficits in connectivity as an important feature of this disorder

Structural neuroimaging biomarkers for obsessive-compulsive disorder in the ENIGMA-OCD consortium: medication matters

No diagnostic biomarkers are available for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Here, we aimed to identify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers for OCD, using 46 data sets with 2304 OCD patients and 2068 healthy controls from the ENIGMA consortium. We performed machine learning analysis of regional measures of cortical thickness, surface area and subcortical volume and tested classification performance using cross-validation. Classification performance for OCD vs. controls using the complete sample with different classifiers and cross-validation strategies was poor. When models were validated on data from other sites, model performance did not exceed chance-level. In contrast, fair classification performance was achieved when patients were grouped according to their medication status. These results indicate that medication use is associated with substantial differences in brain anatomy that are widely distributed, and indicate that clinical heterogeneity contributes to the poor performance of structural MRI as a disease marker

Measuring network's entropy in ADHD: A new approach to investigate neuropsychiatric disorders

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)The application of graph analysis methods to the topological organization of brain connectivity has been a useful tool in the characterization of brain related disorders. However, the availability of tools, which enable researchers to investigate functional brain networks, is still a major challenge. Most of the studies evaluating brain images are based on centrality and segregation measurements of complex networks. In this study, we applied the concept of graph spectral entropy (GSE) to quantify the complexity in the organization of brain networks. In addition, to enhance interpretability, we also combined graph spectral clustering to investigate the topological organization of sub-network's modules. We illustrate the usefulness of the proposed approach by comparing brain networks between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients and the brain networks of typical developing (TD) controls. The main findings highlighted that GSE involving sub-networks comprising the areas mostly bilateral pre and post central cortex, superior temporal gyrus, and inferior frontal gyri were statistically different (p-value = 0.002) between ADHD patients and TO controls. In the same conditions, the other conventional graph descriptors (betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient, and shortest path length) commonly used to identify connectivity abnormalities did not show statistical significant difference. We conclude that analysis of topological organization of brain sub-networks based on GSE can identify networks between brain regions previously unobserved to be in association with ADHD. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.774451Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Pew Latin American FellowshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq

An overview of the first 5 years of the ENIGMA obsessive-compulsive disorder working group: The power of worldwide collaboration

Neuroimaging has played an important part in advancing our understanding of the neurobiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At the same time, neuroimaging studies of OCD have had notable limitations, including reliance on relatively small samples. International collaborative efforts to increase statistical power by combining samples from across sites have been bolstered by the ENIGMA consortium; this provides specific technical expertise for conducting multi-site analyses, as well as access to a collaborative community of neuroimaging scientists. In this article, we outline the background to, development of, and initial findings from ENIGMA's OCD working group, which currently consists of 47 samples from 34 institutes in 15 countries on 5 continents, with a total sample of 2,323 OCD patients and 2,325 healthy controls. Initial work has focused on studies of cortical thickness and subcortical volumes, structural connectivity, and brain lateralization in children, adolescents and adults with OCD, also including the study on the commonalities and distinctions across different neurodevelopment disorders. Additional work is ongoing, employing machine learning techniques. Findings to date have contributed to the development of neurobiological models of OCD, have provided an important model of global scientific collaboration, and have had a number of clinical implications. Importantly, our work has shed new light on questions about whether structural and functional alterations found in OCD reflect neurodevelopmental changes, effects of the disease process, or medication impacts. We conclude with a summary of ongoing work by ENIGMA-OCD, and a consideration of future directions for neuroimaging research on OCD within and beyond ENIGMA

Structural MRI-based predictions in patients with treatment-refractory depression (TRD)

<div><p>The application of machine learning techniques to psychiatric neuroimaging offers the possibility to identify robust, reliable and objective disease biomarkers both within and between contemporary syndromal diagnoses that could guide routine clinical practice. The use of quantitative methods to identify psychiatric biomarkers is consequently important, particularly with a view to making predictions relevant to <i>individual patients</i>, rather than at a group-level. Here, we describe predictions of treatment-refractory depression (TRD) diagnosis using structural T₁-weighted brain scans obtained from twenty adult participants with TRD and 21 never depressed controls. We report 85% accuracy of individual subject diagnostic prediction. Using an automated feature selection method, the major brain regions supporting this significant classification were in the caudate, insula, habenula and periventricular grey matter. It was not, however, possible to predict the degree of ‘treatment resistance’ in individual patients, at least as quantified by the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH-S) clinical staging method; but the insula was again identified as a region of interest. Structural brain imaging data alone can be used to predict diagnostic status, but not MGH-S staging, with a high degree of accuracy in patients with TRD.</p></div

An Empirical Comparison of Meta- and Mega-Analysis With Data From the ENIGMA Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Working Group

Objective: Brain imaging communities focusing on different diseases have increasingly started to collaborate and to pool data to perform well-powered meta- and mega-analyses. Some methodologists claim that a one-stage individual-participant data (IPD) mega-analysis can be superior to a two-stage aggregated data meta-analysis, since more detailed computations can be performed in a mega-analysis. Before definitive conclusions regarding the performance of either method can be drawn, it is necessary to critically evaluate the methodology of, and results obtained by, meta- and mega-analyses. Methods: Here, we compare the inverse variance weighted random-effect meta-analysis model with a multiple linear regression mega-analysis model, as well as with a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analysis model, using data from 38 cohorts including 3,665 participants of the ENIGMA-OCD consortium. We assessed the effect sizes and standard errors, and the fit of the models, to evaluate the performance of the different methods. Results: The mega-analytical models showed lower standard errors and narrower confidence intervals than the meta-analysis. Similar standard errors and confidence intervals were found for the linear regression and linear mixed-effects random-intercept models. Moreover, the linear mixed-effects random-intercept models showed better fit indices compared to linear regression mega-analytical models. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that results obtained by meta- and mega-analysis differ, in favor of the latter. In multi-center studies with a moderate amount of variation between cohorts, a linear mixed-effects random-intercept mega-analytical framework appears to be the better approach to investigate structural neuroimaging data