Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Shared and separate patterns in brain morphometry across transdiagnostic dimensions

Nature Mental Health volume 1, pages 55–65 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Determining similarities and differences in brain structure across psychiatric disorders is important to determine if psychiatric taxonomy is reflected in distinct brain structural changes. As previous neuroimaging meta-analyses have typically focused on a single disorder, precluding transdiagnostic comparisons, we aimed to quantify patterns of similarity and differences between psychiatric disorders in terms of regional brain volumes. Here we show, in network and pairwise meta-analyses of 498 studies (51,227 individuals, 17 psychiatric disorders and 17 brain regions), that psychiatric disorders show both distinct and overlapping patterns of brain volume gain and loss. A principal components analysis demonstrated that the first principal component could account for 48% of variance and corresponded to a pattern of increased basal ganglia and decreased hippocampal and amygdala volumes. This component loaded most strongly for disorders on the psychosis spectrum, and most weakly for affective disorders. Our findings illustrated that, while similar volumetric alterations are frequently shared between disorders, neuroanatomical patterns also appear related to clinically meaningful categories. (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020221143.)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2: Network graphs for brain regions examined.
Fig. 3: Forest plots for standardized mean differences of individual disorders compared with healthy controls.
Fig. 4: Summary of regional volume differences.
Fig. 5: PCA.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data were obtained from publicly available research accessed via MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHINFO databases.

Code availability

All code is available at https://github.com/rob-mccutcheon/volumetric_network_meta.

Change history

  • 26 May 2023

    In the version of this article initially published, the name of Toni-Ann Heron appeared as Toni Ann-Heron; the error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. Goodkind, M. et al. Identification of a common neurobiological substrate for mental Illness. JAMA Psychiatry 72, 305–315 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rogdaki, M. et al. Magnitude and heterogeneity of brain structural abnormalities in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: a meta-analysis. Mol. Psychiatry 25, 1704–1717 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Brugger, S. P. & Howes, O. D. Heterogeneity and homogeneity of regional brain structure in schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 74, 1104 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Opel, N. et al. Cross-disorder analysis of brain structural abnormalities in six major psychiatric disorders: a secondary analysis of mega- and meta-analytical findings from the ENIGMA consortium. Biol. Psychiatry 88, 678–686 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wise, T. et al. Common and distinct patterns of grey-matter volume alteration in major depression and bipolar disorder: evidence from voxel-based meta-analysis. Mol. Psychiatry 22, 1455–1463 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Radonjić, N. V. et al. Structural brain imaging studies offer clues about the effects of the shared genetic etiology among neuropsychiatric disorders. Mol. Psychiatry 26, 2101–2110 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Eickhoff, S. B., Bzdok, D., Laird, A. R., Kurth, F. & Fox, P. T. Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis revisited. NeuroImage 59, 2349–2361 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Efthimiou, O. et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res. Synth. Methods 7, 236–263 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McCutcheon, R. et al. Magnitude and variability of structural brain abnormalities in neuropsychiatric disease: protocol for a network meta-analysis of MRI studies. Evid. Based. Ment. Health 24, 111–114 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Vernon, A. C. et al. Contrasting effects of haloperidol and lithium on rodent brain structure: a magnetic resonance imaging study with postmortem confirmation. Biol. Psychiatry 71, 855–863 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huhtaniska, S. et al. Long-term antipsychotic use and brain changes in schizophrenia—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Psychopharmacol. 32, e2574 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jauhar, S. et al. A test of the transdiagnostic dopamine hypothesis of psychosis using positron emission tomographic imaging in bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 74, 1206–1213 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Barnow, S. et al. Borderline personality disorder and psychosis: a review. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 12, 186–195 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anttila, V. et al. Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain. Science 360, eaap8757 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crivellato, E. & Ribatti, D. Soul, mind, brain: Greek philosophy and the birth of neuroscience. Brain Res. Bull. 71, 327–336 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheon, E. J. et al. Cross disorder comparisons of brain structure in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: a review of ENIGMA findings. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13337 (2022).

  17. Patel, Y. et al. Virtual histology of cortical thickness and shared neurobiology in 6 psychiatric disorders. JAMA Psychiatry 78, 47–63 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bromis, K., Calem, M., Reinders, A. A. T. S., Williams, S. C. R. & Kempton, M. J. Meta-analysis of 89 structural MRI studies in posttraumatic stress disorder and comparison with major depressive disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 175, 989–998 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W. & Goldman-mellor, S. J. The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders?. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2, 119–137 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kotov, R. et al. The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126, 454–477 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steel, Z. et al. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980–2013. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 476–493 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Brugger, S. P. & Howes, O. D. Heterogeneity and homogeneity of regional brain structure in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 74, 1104–1111 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Clementz, B. A. et al. Identification of distinct psychosis biotypes using brain-based biomarkers. Am. J. Psychiatry 173, 373–384 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pfefferbaum, A. et al. Variation in longitudinal trajectories of regional brain volumes of healthy men and women (ages 10 to 85 years) measured with atlas-based parcellation of MRI. NeuroImage 65, 176–193 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Veroniki, A. A. et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 7, 55–79 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Viechtbauer, W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 26, 37–52 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins, J. P. T. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rücker, G., Schwarzer, G., Krahn, U. & König, J. netmeta: network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/netmeta/netmeta.pdf (2015).

  31. Higgins, J. P. T. et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta‐analysis: concepts and models for multi‐arm studies. Res. Synth. Methods 3, 98–110 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. König, J., Krahn, U. & Binder, H. Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta-analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons. Stat. Med. 32, 5414–5429 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wells, G. A. et al. Quality assessment form for cohort studies. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 2–4 (2014). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115843/bin/appe-fm3.pdf

  34. Nikolakopoulou, A. et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 17, 1–19 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stacklies, W., Redestig, H., Scholz, M., Walther, D. & Selbig, J. pcaMethods—a bioconductor package providing PCA methods for incomplete data. Bioinformatics 23, 1164–1167 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mowinckel, A. M. & Vidal-Piñeiro, D. Visualization of brain statistics with R packages ggseg and ggseg3d. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3, 466–483 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.A.M. was funded by and NIHR academic clinical lectureship and a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (224625/Z/21/Z). T.P. is funded by the NIHR. O.D.H. is funded by Medical Research Council-UK (no. MC-A656-5QD30), Maudsley Charity (no. 666), Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and Wellcome Trust (no. 094849/Z/10/Z) grants and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, and by NIHR. O.E. is supported by Ambizione grant no. 180083 from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). A.C. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research Professorship (grant RP-2017-08-ST2-006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (grant BRC-1215-20005). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR or the UK Department of Health.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Robert A McCutcheon, Toby Pillinger.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Robert A. McCutcheon, Orestis Efthimiou & Andrea Cipriani

  2. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK

    Robert A. McCutcheon & Andrea Cipriani

  3. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK

    Robert A. McCutcheon, Toby Pillinger, Xin Guo, Maria Rogdaki, George Welby, Luke Vano, Connor Cummings, Toni-Ann Heron, David Davies, Mawada Ghanem & Oliver D. Howes

  4. Psychiatric Imaging Group, MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK

    Toby Pillinger, Luke Vano & Oliver D. Howes

  5. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Toby Pillinger, Luke Vano & Oliver D. Howes

  6. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Toby Pillinger, Luke Vano & Oliver D. Howes

  7. Department of Psychiatry, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    Xin Guo

  8. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK

    Maria Rogdaki

  9. Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Connor Cummings

  10. CUBRIC, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Stefan Brugger

  11. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Orestis Efthimiou

  12. Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Orestis Efthimiou

Authors
  1. Robert A. McCutcheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toby Pillinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xin Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Rogdaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. George Welby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luke Vano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Connor Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Toni-Ann Heron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stefan Brugger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. David Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mawada Ghanem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Orestis Efthimiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Andrea Cipriani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Oliver D. Howes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.A.M. and T.P. participated in the conception, drafting, revising and final approval of this manuscript. G.W., L.V., C.C., X.G., T.A.-H., M.G., O.E., A.C., M.R., S.B., D.D. and O.D.H. participated in the revising and final approval of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. McCutcheon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R.A.M. has received honoraria from Otsuka and Janssen for educational talks. A.C. has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials) and CARIPLO Foundation and Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. T.P. has participated in speaker meetings organized by Sunovion, Lundbeck, Janssen and Otsuka. O.D.H. is a part-time employee of H. Lundbeck A/S and has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, In-vicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Rand, Recordati, Roche and Viatris/Mylan. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Mental Health thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, figures and tables.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCutcheon, R.A., Pillinger, T., Guo, X. et al. Shared and separate patterns in brain morphometry across transdiagnostic dimensions. Nat. Mental Health 1, 55–65 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-022-00010-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-022-00010-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing