Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

Detecting Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Depression: A Meta-analysis of Multivariate Pattern Recognition Studies

There are no MPG-Authors in the publication available
External Resource

(Any fulltext)

Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Kambeitz, J., Cabral, C., Sacchet, M., Gotlib, I., Zahn, R., Serpa, M., et al. (2017). Detecting Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Depression: A Meta-analysis of Multivariate Pattern Recognition Studies. Biological Psychiatry, 82(5), 330-338. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.10.028.

Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0000-C2B2-B
Background Multiple studies have examined functional and structural brain alteration in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD). The introduction of multivariate statistical methods allows investigators to utilize data concerning these brain alterations to generate diagnostic models that accurately differentiate patients with MDD from healthy control subjects (HCs). However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the reported results, the methodological approaches, and the clinical characteristics of participants in these studies. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies using neuroimaging (volumetric measures derived from T1-weighted images, task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], resting-state MRI, or diffusion tensor imaging) in combination with multivariate statistical methods to differentiate patients diagnosed with MDD from HCs. Results Thirty-three (k = 33) samples including 912 patients with MDD and 894 HCs were included in the meta-analysis. Across all studies, patients with MDD were separated from HCs with 77 sensitivity and 78 specificity. Classification based on resting-state MRI (85 sensitivity, 83 specificity) and on diffusion tensor imaging data (88 sensitivity, 92 specificity) outperformed classifications based on structural MRI (70 sensitivity, 71 specificity) and task-based functional MRI (74 sensitivity, 77 specificity). Conclusions Our results demonstrate the high representational capacity of multivariate statistical methods to identify neuroimaging-based biomarkers of depression. Future studies are needed to elucidate whether multivariate neuroimaging analysis has the potential to generate clinically useful tools for the differential diagnosis of affective disorders and the prediction of both treatment response and functional outcome.