One size does not fit all: notable individual variation in brain activity correlates of antidepressant treatment response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To date, no robust electroencephalography (EEG) markers of antidepressant treatment response have been identified. Variable findings may arise from the use of group analyses, which neglect individual variation. Using a combination of group and single-participant analyses, we explored individual variability in EEG characteristics of treatment response. Methods: Resting-state EEG data and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) symptom scores were collected from 43 patients with depression before, at 1 and 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy. Partial least squares (PLS) was used to: 1) identify group differences in EEG connectivity (weighted phase lag index) and complexity (multiscale entropy) between eventual medication responders and non-responders, and 2) determine whether group patterns could be identified in individual patients. Results: Responders showed decreased alpha and increased beta connectivity, and early, widespread decreases in complexity over treatment. Non-responders showed an opposite connectivity pattern, and later, spatially confined decreases in complexity. Thus, as in previous studies, our group analyses identified significant differences between groups of patients with different treatment outcomes. These group-level EEG characteristics were only identified in ~40-60% of individual patients, as assessed quantitatively by correlating the spatiotemporal brain patterns between groups and individual results, and by independent raters through visualization. Discussion: Our single-participant analyses suggest that substantial individual variation exists, and needs to be considered when investigating characteristics of antidepressant treatment response for potential clinical applicability. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT00519428.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".