ArticleBiological psychiatry global open science2021
Identifying Subgroups of Major Depressive Disorder Using Brain Structural Covariance Networks and Mapping of Associated Clinical and Cognitive Variables.
Article in Biological psychiatry global open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network-level structural alterations distinguish persistent from remitted post-traumatic stress disorder: a morphometric covariance approach.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- What Is Precision Psychotherapy?The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2026Article
- Two subtypes of major depressive disorder are identified from individualized gray matter morphological abnormalities in a large multi-site dataset.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Cognitive heterogeneity in major depressive disorder: classification by IQ trajectory and multimodal neuroimaging profiles.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Predicting treatment response in individuals with major depressive disorder using structural MRI-based similarity features.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Abnormal structural covariance network in major depressive disorder: Evidence from the REST-meta-MDD project.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2025Article
- Higher amplitudes of visual networks are associated with trait- but not state-depression.Psychological medicine · 2024Article
- Relationship of prefrontal cortex activity with anhedonia and cognitive function in major depressive disorder: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Identifying data-driven subtypes of major depressive disorder (MDD) holds promise for parsing the heterogeneity of MDD in a neurobiologically informed way. However, limited studies have used brain structural covariance networks (SCNs) for subtyping MDD. Methods: This study included 145 unmedicated patients with MDD and 206 demographically matched healthy control subjects, who underwent a structural magnetic resonance imaging scan and a comprehensive neurocognitive battery. Patterns of structural covariance were identified using source-based morphometry across both patients with MDD and healthy control subjects. K-means clustering algorithms were applied on dysregulated structural networks in MDD to identify potential MDD subtypes. Finally, clinical and neurocognitive measures were compared between identified subgroups to elucidate the profile of these MDD subtypes. Results: Source-based morphometry across all individuals identified 28 whole-brain SCNs that encompassed the prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and orbitofrontal cortices; basal ganglia; and cerebellar, visual, and motor regions. Compared with healthy control subjects, individuals with MDD showed lower structural network integrity in three networks including default mode, ventromedial prefrontal cortical, and salience networks. Clustering analysis revealed two MDD subtypes based on the patterns of structural network abnormalities in these three networks. Further profiling revealed that patients in subtype 1 had younger age of onset and more symptom severity as well as greater deficits in cognitive performance than patients in subtype 2. Conclusions: Overall, we identified two MDD subtypes based on SCNs that differed in their clinical and cognitive profile. Our results represent a proof-of-concept framework for leveraging these large-scale SCNs to parse heterogeneity in MDD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.