MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410327853 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105756

Unveiling diverse clinical symptom patterns and neural activity profiles in major depressive disorder subtypes

2025· article· en· W4410327853 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Wang, Yingying Su, Qian Liu, Muzi Li, Yashar Zeighami, Jie Fan, G. Camelia Adams, Changlian Tan, Xiongzhao Zhu, Xiangfei Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatryBiologyPsychologyBioinformaticsMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of major depressive disorder (MDD) significantly hinders its effective and optimal clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify MDD subtypes by adopting a data-driven approach and assessing validity based on symptomatology and neuroimaging. METHODS: A total of 259 patients with MDD and 92 healthy controls were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify MDD subtypes based on validated clinical symptoms. To examine whether there were differences between these identified MDD subtypes, network analysis was used to test any differences in symptom patterns between these subtypes. We also compared neural activity between these identified MDD subtypes and tested whether certain neural activities were related to individual subtypes. This MDD subtyping was further tested in an independent dataset that contains 86 patients with MDD. FINDINGS: Five MDD subtypes with distinct depressive symptom patterns were identified using the LPA model, with the 5-class model selected as the optimal classification solution based on its superior fit indices (AIC = 6656.296, aBIC = 6681.030, entropy = 0.917, LMR p = 0.3267, BLRT p < 0.001). The identified subtypes include atypical-like depression, two melancholic depression (moderate and severe) subtypes with distinct patterns on feeling anxious, and two anhedonic depression subtypes (moderate and severe) with different manifestations on weight/appetite loss. The reproducibility of the classification was also confirmed. Significant differences in symptom structures between melancholic and two anhedonic subtypes, and between anhedonic and atypical subtypes were observed (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, these identified subtypes had differential neural activities in both regional spontaneous neural activity (pFWE < 0.005) and functional connectivity between different brain regions (pFDR < 0.005), linked to different clinical symptoms (FDR q < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The network analysis and neuroimaging tests support the existence and validity of the identified MDD subtypes, each exhibiting unique clinical manifestations and neural activity patterns. The categorisation of these subtypes sheds light on the heterogeneity of depression and suggest that personalised treatment and management strategies tailored to specific subtypes may enhance intervention strategies in clinical settings. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and China Scholarship Council (CSC).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207