Toward a Neuroimaging Treatment Selection Biomarker for Major Depressive Disorder
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Currently, fewer than 40% of patients treated for major depressive disorder achieve remission with initial treatment. Identification of a biological marker that might improve these odds could have significant health and economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To identify a candidate neuroimaging "treatment-specific biomarker" that predicts differential outcome to either medication or psychotherapy. DESIGN: Brain glucose metabolism was measured with positron emission tomography prior to treatment randomization to either escitalopram oxalate or cognitive behavior therapy for 12 weeks. Patients who did not remit on completion of their phase 1 treatment were offered enrollment in phase 2 comprising an additional 12 weeks of treatment with combination escitalopram and cognitive behavior therapy. SETTING: Mood and anxiety disorders research program at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 18 to 60 years with currently untreated major depressive disorder. INTERVENTION: Randomized assignment to 12 weeks of treatment with either escitalopram oxalate (10-20 mg/d) or 16 sessions of manual-based cognitive behavior therapy. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Remission, defined as a 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale score of 7 or less at both weeks 10 and 12, as assessed by raters blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Positive and negative predictors of remission were identified with a 2-way analysis of variance treatment (escitalopram or cognitive behavior therapy) × outcome (remission or nonresponse) interaction. Of 65 protocol completers, 38 patients with clear outcomes and usable positron emission tomography scans were included in the primary analysis: 12 remitters to cognitive behavior therapy, 11 remitters to escitalopram, 9 nonresponders to cognitive behavior therapy, and 6 nonresponders to escitalopram. Six limbic and cortical regions were identified, with the right anterior insula showing the most robust discriminant properties across groups (effect size = 1.43). Insula hypometabolism (relative to whole-brain mean) was associated with remission to cognitive behavior therapy and poor response to escitalopram, while insula hypermetabolism was associated with remission to escitalopram and poor response to cognitive behavior therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: If verified with prospective testing, the insula metabolism-based treatment-specific biomarker defined in this study provides the first objective marker, to our knowledge, to guide initial treatment selection for depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00367341).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CBT may alter brain functional connectivity in depression.
“Existent literature has suggested that CBT may alter brain functional connectivity (FC) in depression (McGrath et al. 2013), phobia, obsessive‐compulsive disorder (Linden 2006), and pain conditions (Bao et al. 2022), although findings remain inconsistent.”
From Baseline Functional Connectivity of the Mesolimbic, Salience, and Sensorimotor Systems Predicts Responses to Psychological Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain With Comorbid Depression: A Functional MRI Study (2025) · cites this paper as McGrath et al. 2013
The introductory passage (page unavailable) says imaging studies show that psychotherapy affects distinct brain regions, supporting the broader suggestion that CBT may alter brain function in depression. But this paper measured pretreatment glucose metabolism to predict treatment response; its Methods > Image Analysis passage (page unavailable) does not assess whether CBT changes functional connectivity. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBehavioral and psychosocial interventions to prevent suicide and suicide attempts are effective, particularly interventions that directly address suicidal thoughts.
“The effectiveness of behavioral and psychosocial interventions to prevent suicide and suicide attempts has been supported by a recent meta-analysis, particularly for interventions that directly address suicidal thoughts 216 .”
From Major depressive disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [216]
The Abstract (Intervention; page not provided) describes a trial of escitalopram versus cognitive behavior therapy for major depression, not a meta-analysis of suicide-prevention interventions. The Methods (Patient Selection; page not provided) mention suicidal ideation only as an exclusion criterion. Searches for suicide attempts, suicidal thoughts, and a prevention meta-analysis found no passage addressing the claimed effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 561
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [44]First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition With Psychotic Screen (SCID-I/P W/PSY SCREEN) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute 2002
- Authors
- McGrath, C. L., Kelley, M. E., Holtzheimer, P. E., Dunlop, B. W., Craighead, W. E., Franco, A. R., Craddock, R. C., & Mayberg, H. S.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
- Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mayberg, Helen S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2013-08-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 821
- ISSN
- 2168-622X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4413467
- OpenAlex
- W2162056840
- Semantic Scholar
- fde5ced832d77741f4e011d49cfc062f081c7604
- Cited by
- 561
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 17
- FWCI
- 43.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH086690, R01MH073719, K23MH077869)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008695)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, brain glucose metabolism, anterior insula, escitalopram, cognitive behavioral therapy, antidepressant response prediction, treatment non-response, remission, treatment-resistant depression, PET imaging biomarkers
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Brain Chemistry, Combined Modality Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Remission Induction, Citalopram, Biomarkers, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation, Positron-Emission Tomography, Neuroimaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review