Subscribe X
Back to Top

Learn

April 24, 2019 by Peter Simons | MadInAmerica.com

Researchers Fail to Replicate Evidence for “Biotypes” of Depression

A new study casts doubt on whether such biotypes for depression exist.

(MadInAmerica.com) – Two years ago, a study used fMRI technology to come to a startling conclusion—there might be four biological subtypes of depression, called depression biotypes. This would herald a new age of depression research—one where mental health concerns could finally be linked to neurobiology. Now, a new study has attempted to replicate those findings, but their results cast doubt on whether such “biotypes” exist. According to the researchers, no statistically significant differences were found.

“Extending the original methods with additional more rigorous statistical procedures,” the researchers write, “we did not find stable or statistically significant biotypes of depression and anxiety in an independent sample from a different clinical population.”

The research was led by Richard Dinga at the Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center, Amsterdam. The researchers attempted to adhere to the exact methodology of the previous study and even contacted the former research team to discuss how to follow their methods precisely.

The 187 participants in this study had a diagnosis of either major depressive disorder or an anxiety disorder or both. They had no other psychiatric diagnosis and were not currently taking any antidepressant medications. Resting-state fMRI brain scans were conducted and then correlated.

Dinga and the other researchers write that the specific type of correlations done by the previous research team could have led to false positives—that is, those statistics were overly likely to lead to positive results. The researchers for the current study used a slightly more conservative method to compensate for this.

The researchers found that although they replicated the correlations of the original paper, none of the findings were statistically significant. These findings were just as likely to be due to chance. Dinga and the others note that the original study did not bother to test the statistical significance of their correlations: “It remains to be confirmed whether the canonical variates identified in their original study were significant.”

Also, Dinga and the others tested whether the clustering of biological data might be due to chance. They found that it very well might have been. According to the researchers, clustering analyses “always yield clusters, regardless of the structure of the data, even if there are no clusters at all.”

The researchers write, though, that the previous study did not analyze this possibility: “In the original study, this was not tested. Therefore, we cannot say if the data in the original study really formed clusters, instead of just random fluctuation of the data.”

Dinga and the others note many problems with clustering based on biology—even if the clusters do exist. For instance, supposed biological subtypes might not be based on mental health symptoms, but instead, be based on other physical traits. “The variability of biological data is more often than not unrelated to any specific psychiatric disorder or symptom class.” It might instead be based on random variations such as “groups of people with similar brain size or body type or common ancestry in the case of genetics.”

Interestingly, in the original study, the researchers admit that there was no way to clinicallydifferentiate the subtypes they found with fMRI data.

“Due to the clinical heterogeneity of many psychiatric disorders and the quest for personalized medicine, there is a tendency towards subtyping and expanding psychiatric nosology,” Dinga and the other researchers write.

“However, the presumption of distinct and homogeneous subtypes might not be clinically useful and might not represent the underlying biology. Many clustering approaches will always produce some clusters and would so even for uniformly distributed data. It is, therefore, crucial to distinguish real biologically or clinically meaningful subtypes from random fluctuation of the data.”

****

Dinga, R., Schmaal, L., Penninx, B. W. J. H., van Tol, M. J., Veltman, D. J., van Velzen, L. . . . & Marquand, A. F. (2019). Evaluating the evidence for biotypes of depression: Methodological replication and extension of Drysdale et al. (2017)NeuroImage: Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101796

Source: MadInAmerica.com/2019/04/researchers-fail-replicate-evidence-biotypes-depression/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Related Blogs

  • Dr. David Healy

    Dr. David Healy

    Dr. Healy is a professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University in Wales and an author on the history of pharmaceuticals and government regulation.
    READ BLOG
  • Mad In America: Robert Whitaker

    Mad In America: Robert Whitaker

    Journalist and author Bob Whitaker distills the latest in pharmaceutical and mental health research.
    READ BLOG
  • Selling Sickness

    Selling Sickness

    Creating a new partnership movement to challenge the selling of sickness.
    READ BLOG
  • Kathy Brous

    Kathy Brous

    A serial of Kathy's recovery journey as an adult with attachment disorder.
    READ BLOG
  • Nev Jones

    Nev Jones

    Exploring the intersections of psychiatry, philosophy, neuroscience, cultural theory, critical community psychology and the mad/user/survivor movement.
    READ BLOG
  • 1boringoldman

    1boringoldman

    Retired psychiatrist and raconteur offers insightful analysis of the day's events from the woods of Georgia.
    READ BLOG