ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Clinical patterns in a neuroimaging-based predictive model of self-reported dissociation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Assessment of trauma-related dissociation has been historically challenging given its subjective nature and the lack of provider education around this topic. Recent work identified a promising neural biomarker of trauma-related dissociation, representing a significant step toward improved assessment and identification of dissociation. However, it is necessary to better understand clinical factors that may be associated with this biomarker. Method: Participants were 65 women with histories of childhood maltreatment, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and varying levels of dissociation (e.g., co-occurring dissociative identity disorder, DID). Data were drawn from a previously published work that identified a model predicting Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation severe pathological dissociation scores on the basis of neural functional connectivity. Here, we conducted a k-means cluster analysis to explore patterns in results of the prediction model. We then investigated differences among the clusters in a range of clinically-relevant variables. Results: The clustering analysis identified four distinct groups. The functional connectivity model best predicted those at the low (cluster 1, 82% PTSD) and high (cluster 3, 86% DID) ends of the self-reported dissociation scale. Cluster 2 also largely included participants with DID (67%), but the predictive model was less accurate for these individuals. Follow up analyses revealed that DID participants in cluster 2 reported lower levels of self-state intrusions, a type of DID-specific dissociation, compared to those in cluster 3. Conclusions: The predictive performance of the functional connectivity biomarker is linked to DID-specific dissociation. This suggests that in the future functional connectivity signatures may improve accurate assessment of DID. Clinical Impact Statement: The present study aimed to examine patterns in a previously identified brain signature of dissociation. We identified two distinct groups of individuals with dissociative identity disorder (DID) who differed in a DID-specific type of dissociation. These findings suggest that the brain signature of dissociation may be linked with DID-specific dissociation and underscore the importance of comprehensively evaluating dissociative symptoms. Dissociative symptoms are difficult to assess because the experience is highly subjective and because many providers do not receive training in dissociation. Objective, brain-based metrics to supplement self-reports would be invaluable in enhancing the assessment and treatment of trauma-related dissociation.
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.