Abstract
Importance Patients with depression vary from one-another in their clinical and neurobiological presentation, yet the relationship between clinical and neurobiological sources of variation is poorly understood. Determining sources of heterogeneity in depression is important to gain insights into its diverse and complex neural etiology.
Objective This study aims to determine how clinical and neurobiological sources of variation in depression interact to give rise to population heterogeneity. Specifically, we aimed to test if depression heterogeneity is characterized by subgroups that differ both clinically and neurobiologically and/or whether multiple neurobiological profiles give rise to the same clinical presentation.
Design Clinically dissociated groups were selected to isolate clinical characteristics of depression (symptoms of anhedonia, depressed mood, and somatic disturbance; severity indices of lifetime chronicity and acute impairment; and late onset). Residual neurobiological heterogeneity within each group was assessed using neurobiologically driven clustering.
Setting This study utilizes population-based data from the UK Biobank over multiple imaging sites.
Participants All depressed participants (N=6,121) met one of the three clinical criteria: ICD10 label for depressive episode(s), probable MDD status, one or more recorded depression episodes. Control participants (N=8,565) reported minimal depression scores and no history of depression.
Exposure There are no interventions or exposures in this study.
Main Outcomes and Measures This study used several clinical features, multimodal MRI, and outcome phenotypes.
Results The six clinically dissociated subgroups (total N=1909, n male=771, mean[SD] age=62.64[7.78]; subgroups: 211<n<576) had significantly larger (p<0.005, CI<[-0.260,-0.042]) neurobiological normative deviations than a comparison heterogeneous group (n=4210) and had distinct neurobiological profiles from each other. Imaging driven clustering within each clinically dissociated group identified two stable subtypes within the acute impairment group that differed significantly (p=0.003, CI:[-1.23,-0.345]) in cognitive ability, despite identical clinical profiles.
Conclusions and Relevance The study identified distinct neurobiological profiles related to particular clinical depression features that may explain inconsistencies in the literature and sub-clusters within the acute impairment group with cognitive differences that were only differentiable by neurobiology. Our results provide evidence that multiple neurobiological profiles may give rise to the same clinical presentation, emphasizing the presence of complex interactions between clinical and neurobiological sources of heterogeneity.
Study type Cross-sectional study
Question How do clinical and neurobiological sources of variation in depression interact to give rise to population heterogeneity?
Findings In this cohort study, we identified statistically significant neurobiological profiles distinct to dissociable clinical features of depression and provide evidence for residual neurobiological heterogeneity after tightly controlling clinical variation, resulting in clusters with statistically significant differences in cognition.
Meaning These results provide insights into the complex etiological relationships between neurobiological and clinical variation in depression and inform future biotype research by highlighting the need to distinguish biotypes both clinically and neurobiologically.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the NIH (R01 MH128286).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This manuscript was updated to fit guidelines of new journal and to make minor updates to work based on feedback.
Data Availability
UK Biobank data is available following an access application process. For more information: https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access.
https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access
