Cited by 106Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMental Health Research TopicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Parsing Heterogeneity in the Brain Connectivity of Depressed and Healthy Adults During Positive Mood

Open access
Price, Rebecca B., Lane, Stephanie, Gates, Kathleen, Kraynak, Thomas E., Horner, Michelle S., Thase, Michael E., Siegle, Greg J.·2017·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background There is well-known heterogeneity in affective mechanisms in depression that may extend to positive affect. We used data-driven parsing of neural connectivity to reveal subgroups present across depressed and healthy individuals during positive processing, informing targets for mechanistic intervention.Methods Ninety-two individuals (68 depressed patients, 24 never-depressed control subjects) completed a sustained positive mood induction during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Directed functional connectivity paths within a depression-relevant network were characterized using Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation (GIMME), a method shown to accurately recover the direction and presence of connectivity paths in individual participants. During model selection, individuals were clustered using community detection on neural connectivity estimates. Subgroups were externally tested across multiple levels of analysis.Results Two connectivity-based subgroups emerged: subgroup A, characterized by weaker connectivity overall, and subgroup B, exhibiting hyperconnectivity (relative to subgroup A), particularly among ventral affective regions. Subgroup predicted diagnostic status (subgroup B contained 81% of patients; 50% of control subjects; χ 2 = 8.6, p = .003) and default mode network connectivity during a separate resting-state task. Among patients, subgroup B members had higher self-reported symptoms, lower sustained positive mood during the induction, and higher negative bias on a reaction-time task. Symptom-based depression subgroups did not predict these external variables.Conclusions Neural connectivity-based categorization travels with diagnostic category and is clinically predictive, but not clinically deterministic. Both patients and control subjects showed heterogeneous, and overlapping, profiles. The larger and more severely affected patient subgroup was characterized by ventrally driven hyperconnectivity during positive processing. Data-driven parsing suggests heterogeneous substrates of depression and possible resilience in control subjects in spite of biological overlap.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.06.023

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Marked heterogeneity of depressed patients is evident at the neural network, cognitive, information processing, and clinical levels.

    “Equally noteworthy, however, is the marked heterogeneity of depressed patients, which is evident at the neural network 143,144 , cognitive 145 , information processing 145,146 , and clinical 147 levels, and may help to explain the fact that no known intervention strategy is effective for all depressed patients.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Price, R. B., Lane, S., Gates, K., Kraynak, T. E., Horner, M. S., Thase, M. E., & Siegle, G. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Price, Rebecca B.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
81
Issue
4
Pages
347-357
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2463383187
Cited by
106
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007560)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH069618, K02MH082998, R01MH058397, K23MH100259, R01MH074807, R01MH058356)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R21EB015573)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
depression, positive mood, neuronal heterogeneity, directed functional connectivity, GIMME, community detection, default mode network, mood induction, negative bias, resilience
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Brain, Brain Mapping, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Resilience, Psychological

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