Dataset Information

Dealing with heterogeneity of cognitive dysfunction in acute depression: a clustering approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Heterogeneity in cognitive functioning among major depressive disorder (MDD) patients could have been the reason for the small-to-moderate differences reported so far when it is compared to other psychiatric conditions or to healthy controls. Additionally, most of these studies did not take into account clinical and sociodemographic characteristics that could have played a relevant role in cognitive variability. This study aims to identify empirical clusters based on cognitive, clinical and sociodemographic variables in a sample of acute MDD patients.

Methods

In a sample of 174 patients with an acute depressive episode, a two-step clustering analysis was applied considering potentially relevant cognitive, clinical and sociodemographic variables as indicators for grouping.

Results

Treatment resistance was the most important factor for clustering, closely followed by cognitive performance. Three empirical subgroups were obtained: cluster 1 was characterized by a sample of non-resistant patients with preserved cognitive functioning (n = 68, 39%); cluster 2 was formed by treatment-resistant patients with selective cognitive deficits (n = 66, 38%) and cluster 3 consisted of resistant (n = 23, 58%) and non-resistant (n = 17, 42%) acute patients with significant deficits in all neurocognitive domains (n = 40, 23%).

Conclusions

The findings provide evidence upon the existence of cognitive heterogeneity across patients in an acute depressive episode. Therefore, assessing cognition becomes an evident necessity for all patients diagnosed with MDD, and although treatment resistant is associated with greater cognitive dysfunction, non-resistant patients can also show significant cognitive deficits. By targeting not only mood but also cognition, patients are more likely to achieve full recovery and prevent new relapses.

SUBMITTER: Vicent-Gil M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8640365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Spatial priorities for the conservation of three key Mediterranean habitats, i.e. seagrass Posidonia oceanica meadows, coralligenous formations, and marine caves, were determined through a systematic planning approach. Available information on the distribution of these habitats across the entire Mediterranean Sea was compiled to produce basin-scale distribution maps. Conservation targets for each habitat type were set according to European Union guidelines. Surrogates were used to estimate the spatial variation of opportunity cost for commercial, non-commercial fishing, and aquaculture. Marxan conservation planning software was used to evaluate the comparative utility of two planning scenarios: (a) a whole-basin scenario, referring to selection of priority areas across the whole Mediterranean Sea, and (b) an ecoregional scenario, in which priority areas were selected within eight predefined ecoregions. Although both scenarios required approximately the same total area to be protected in order to achieve conservation targets, the opportunity cost differed between them. The whole-basin scenario yielded a lower opportunity cost, but the Alboran Sea ecoregion was not represented and priority areas were predominantly located in the Ionian, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas. In comparison, the ecoregional scenario resulted in a higher representation of ecoregions and a more even distribution of priority areas, albeit with a higher opportunity cost. We suggest that planning at the ecoregional level ensures better representativeness of the selected conservation features and adequate protection of species, functional, and genetic diversity across the basin. While there are several initiatives that identify priority areas in the Mediterranean Sea, our approach is novel as it combines three issues: (a) it is based on the distribution of habitats and not species, which was rarely the case in previous efforts, (b) it considers spatial variability of cost throughout this socioeconomically heterogeneous basin, and (c) it adopts ecoregions as the most appropriate level for large-scale planning.

Project description:Diagnostic heterogeneity within and across psychotic and affective disorders challenges accurate treatment selection, particularly in the early stages. Delineation of shared and distinct illness features at the phenotypic and brain levels may inform the development of more precise differential diagnostic tools. We aimed to identify prototypes of depression and psychosis to investigate their heterogeneity, with common, comorbid transdiagnostic symptoms. Analyzing clinical/neurocognitive and grey matter volume (GMV) data from the PRONIA database, we generated prototypic models of recent-onset depression (ROD) vs. recent-onset psychosis (ROP) by training support-vector machines to separate patients with ROD from patients with ROP, who were selected for absent comorbid features (pure groups). Then, models were applied to patients with comorbidity, ie, ROP with depressive symptoms (ROP+D) and ROD participants with sub-threshold psychosis-like features (ROD+P), to measure their positions within the affective-psychotic continuum. All models were independently validated in a replication sample. Comorbid patients were positioned between pure groups, with ROP+D patients being more frequently classified as ROD compared to pure ROP patients (clinical/neurocognitive model: χ2 = 14.874; P < .001; GMV model: χ2 = 4.933; P = .026). ROD+P patient classification did not differ from ROD (clinical/neurocognitive model: χ2 = 1.956; P = 0.162; GMV model: χ2 = 0.005; P = .943). Clinical/neurocognitive and neuroanatomical models demonstrated separability of prototypic depression from psychosis. The shift of comorbid patients toward the depression prototype, observed at the clinical and biological levels, suggests that psychosis with affective comorbidity aligns more strongly to depressive rather than psychotic disease processes. Future studies should assess how these quantitative measures of comorbidity predict outcomes and individual responses to stratified therapeutic interventions.