NeuropsychopharmacologyNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Neurocognitive and Functional Heterogeneity in Depressed Youth
Erica B. BalleriD, Antonia N. KaczkurkiniD, Aristeidis SotirasiD, Azeez AdebimpeiD, Danielle S. BassettiD, Monica E. CalkinsiD, Ganesh B. ChandiD, Zaixu CuiiD, Raquel E. GuriD, Ruben C. GuriD, Kristin A. LinniD, Tyler M. MooreiD, David R. RoalfiD, Erdem VaroliD, Daniel H. WolfiD, Cedric Huchuan XiaiD, Christos A. DavatzikosiD, Theodore Daniel SatterthwaiteiD
Abstract
OBJECTIVEDepression is a common psychiatric illness that often begins in youth, and is associated with cognitive symptoms. However, there is significant variability in the cognitive burden, likely reflecting biological heterogeneity. This study sought to identify neurocognitive subtypes in a large sample of depressed youth, and evaluated the neural signatures of these subtypes.\n\nMETHODSParticipants were drawn from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, including 712 youth with a lifetime history of a major depressive episode and 712 typically developing (TD) youth matched on age and sex. A subset (n=368, TD=200) also completed neuroimaging. Cognition was assessed with the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery. A semi-supervised machine-learning algorithm, HYDRA (Heterogeneity through Discriminative Analysis), was used to delineate neurocognitive subtypes. Subtypes were evaluated for differences in both clinical psychopathology and brain activation during an n-back working memory fMRI task.\n\nRESULTSHYDRA identified three neurocognitive subtypes in the depressed group. Overall, Subtype 1 had better performance than TD comparators across many cognitive tasks (high accuracy, moderate speed), Subtype 2 was cognitively impaired (low accuracy, slow speed), whereas Subtype 3 was impulsive (low accuracy, fast speed). While subtypes did not differ in clinical psychopathology, they diverged in their activation profiles in regions critical for executive function, which mirrored differences in cognition.\n\nCONCLUSIONSUsing a data-driven approach, three neurocognitive subtypes of depression were identified that differed in neural signatures despite similar clinical psychopathology. These data suggest disparate mechanisms of cognitive vulnerability and resilience in depression, which may inform the identification of biomarkers for prognosis and treatment response.
- organism: human
- assay: imaging
- research focus: clustering
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: cell-cell communication
- research focus: spatial domain detection
- approach: machine learning (classical)
- Citations
- 27
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Field percentile
- top 18%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Neurostructural Heterogeneity in Youth with Internalizing Symptoms
Antonia N. Kaczkurkin, Aristeidis Sotiras, … Theodore Daniel Satterthwaite·Biological PsychiatryPeer-reviewed·Sep 18, 2019
- Mapping Neurophysiological Subtypes of Major Depressive Disorder Using Normative Models of the Functional Connectome
Xiaoyi Sun, Jinrong Sun, … Mingrui Xia·Biological PsychiatryPeer-reviewed·Jun 7, 2023
- Neuroimaging profiling identifies distinct brain maturational subtypes of youth with mood and anxiety disorders
R. Ge, R. Sassi, … S. Frangou·bioRxiv·Aug 30, 2022
- Neurovegetative symptom subtypes in young people with major depressive disorder and their structural brain correlates
Yara Jo Toenders, Lianne Schmaal, … Christopher G. Davey·Translational PsychiatryPeer-reviewed·Apr 20, 2020
- Normative modeling of brain morphology reveals neuroanatomical heterogeneity and biological subtypes in major depressive disorder
Qingchen Fan, Jiahao Gao, … Yuan Zhou·bioRxiv·Dec 10, 2025
- Adolescents with major depression featured by sensory-association subtyping show divergent information dynamics and streams
Xiaobo Liu, Bin Wan, … Yujun Gao·bioRxiv·Mar 29, 2025