BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly clear that pathophysiological processes underlying psychiatric disorders categories are heterogeneous on many levels, including symptoms, disease course, comorbidity and biological underpinnings. This heterogeneity poses challenges for identifying biological markers associated with dimensions of symptoms and behaviour that could provide targets to guide treatment choice and novel treatment. In response, the research domain criteria (RDoC) (Insel et al., 2010) was developed to advocate a dimensional approach which omits any disease definitions, disorder thresholds, or cut-points for various levels of psychopathology to understanding the pathophysiological processes underlying psychiatry disorders. In the present study we aimed to apply pattern regression analysis to identify brain signatures during dynamic emotional face processing that are predictive of anxiety and depression symptoms in a continuum that ranges from normal to pathological levels, cutting across categorically-defined diagnoses. METHODS: The sample was composed of one-hundred and fifty-four young adults (mean age=21.6 and s.d.=2.0, 103 females) consisting of eighty-two young adults seeking treatment for psychological distress that cut across categorically-defined diagnoses and 72 matched healthy young adults. Participants performed a dynamic face task involving fearful, angry and happy faces (and geometric shapes) while undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Pattern regression analyses consisted of Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) implemented in the Pattern Recognition for Neuroimaging toolbox (PRoNTo). Predicted and actual clinical scores were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and normalized mean squared error (MSE) to evaluate the models' performance. Permutation test was applied to estimate significance levels. RESULTS: GPR identified patterns of neural activity to dynamic emotional face processing predictive of self-report anxiety in the whole sample, which covered a continuum that ranged from healthy to different levels of distress, including subthreshold to fully-syndromal psychiatric diagnoses. Results were significant using two different cross validation strategies (two-fold: r=0.28 (p-value=0.001), MSE=4.47 (p-value=0.001) and five fold r=0.28 (p-value=0.002), MSE=4.62 (p-value=0.003). The contributions of individual regions to the predictive model were very small, demonstrating that predictions were based on the overall pattern rather than on a small combination of regions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings represent early evidence that neuroimaging techniques may inform clinical assessment of young adults irrespective of diagnoses by allowing accurate and objective quantitative estimation of psychopathology
