Skip to main content
PMC home page
Brain and Behavior logoLink to Brain and Behavior
. 2017 Feb 12;7(3):e00633. doi: 10.1002/brb3.633

Separating generalized anxiety disorder from major depression using clinical, hormonal, and structural MRI data: A multimodal machine learning study

Kevin Hilbert 1,2,3,✉, Ulrike Lueken 1,3,4, Markus Muehlhan 1,3, Katja Beesdo‐Baum 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC5346520  PMID: 28293473

Abstract

Background

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is difficult to recognize and hard to separate from major depression (MD) in clinical settings. Biomarkers might support diagnostic decisions. This study used machine learning on multimodal biobehavioral data from a sample of GAD, MD and healthy subjects to differentiate subjects with a disorder from healthy subjects (case‐classification) and to differentiate GAD from MD (disorder‐classification).

Methods

Subjects with GAD (n = 19), MD without GAD (n = 14), and healthy comparison subjects (n = 24) were included. The sample was matched regarding age, sex, handedness and education and free of psychopharmacological medication. Binary support vector machines were used within a nested leave‐one‐out cross‐validation framework. Clinical questionnaires, cortisol release, gray matter (GM), and white matter (WM) volumes were used as input data separately and in combination.

Results

Questionnaire data were well‐suited for case‐classification but not disorder‐classification (accuracies: 96.40%, p < .001; 56.58%, p > .22). The opposite pattern was found for imaging data (case‐classification GM/WM: 58.71%, p = .09/43.18%, p > .66; disorder‐classification GM/WM: 68.05%, p = .034/58.27%, p > .15) and for cortisol data (38.02%, p = .84; 74.60%, p = .009). All data combined achieved 90.10% accuracy (p < .001) for case‐classification and 67.46% accuracy (p = .0268) for disorder‐classification.

Conclusions

In line with previous evidence, classification of GAD was difficult using clinical questionnaire data alone. Particularly cortisol and GM volume data were able to provide incremental value for the classification of GAD. Findings suggest that neurobiological biomarkers are a useful target for further research to delineate their potential contribution to diagnostic processes.

Keywords: classification, generalized anxiety disorder, machine learning, major depression, structural MRI, support vector machine

1. Introduction

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is among the most prevalent anxiety disorders in the general population (Beesdo, Pine, Lieb, & Wittchen, 2010; Kessler, Petukhova, Sampson, Zaslavsky, & Wittchen, 2012) and associated with considerable burden for the individual and the society (Andlin‐Sobocki & Wittchen, 2005; Hoffman, Dukes, & Wittchen, 2008). Concurrent comorbidity with major depression (MD) is high (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005) and typically between 40% and 60% (Carter, Wittchen, Pfister, & Kessler, 2001; Hunt, Issakidis, & Andrews, 2002). Previous research has shown both insufficient sensitivity in detecting a GAD patient as a case in real‐world clinical settings and low specificity when separating a GAD diagnosis from MD (Calleo et al., 2009; Wittchen et al., 2002). Wittchen et al. (2002) found that only about two‐thirds of all primary care patients with GAD but no depression were identified by their primary care physician as cases with any mental disorder, whereas case recognition was 85% in patients with comorbid GAD and MD. Only 34% of pure GAD cases and 43% of comorbid GAD cases were diagnosed with GAD. Calleo et al. (2009) reported that only 28% of all elderly GAD patients presenting in specialty medical clinics received a diagnosis of any anxiety or mood disorder and only 1.5% were correctly diagnosed with GAD. In other primary care studies, between 30% and 55% of GAD patients were recognized and correctly diagnosed (Munk‐Jorgensen et al., 2006; Vermani, Marcus, & Katzman, 2011). GAD is particularly difficult to separate from MD: Calleo et al. (2009) report that the number of GAD patients receiving a diagnosis of a depressive disorder is more than twice the number of GAD patients receiving a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. In primary care settings, GAD recognition is facilitated by further clinical information such as the presence of a higher number of disorder symptoms, the presence of comorbid mental disorders and by patients primarily reporting nonsomatic symptoms to their physician (Wittchen et al., 2002). Additionally, detection of GAD in primary care might be supported using screening measures (Herr, Williams, Benjamin, & McDuffie, 2014) such as the GAD‐7 (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Lowe, 2006) or the Anxiety Screening Questionnaire (ASQ; Wittchen & Boyer, 1998; Wittchen & Perkonigg, 1997). The correct diagnosis is of vital importance as it largely determines the choice of psychotherapeutic or pharmacologic treatment. Improving the differentiation of GAD and MD during the diagnostic process is therefore essential to support clinical decisions.

The use of biomarkers based on the neurobiological differences in disorders has been proposed as one option for increasing diagnostic accuracy (for a review see Wolfers, Buitelaar, Beckmann, Franke, & Marquand, 2015). A useful biomarker has to provide sufficient sensitivity and specificity to predict a given patient's status on the individual level (Lueken et al., 2016; Savitz, Rauch, & Drevets, 2013). Machine learning algorithms have shown predictive potential for single‐subject diagnostic purposes and may thus support personalized medicine approaches. Supervised machine learning algorithms such as support vector machines (SVM) have been used to investigate the potential use of these biomarkers for separating different disorders based on their neural correlates (Grotegerd et al., 2013; Lim et al., 2013; Lueken, Hilbert, Wittchen, Reif, & Hahn, 2015; MacMaster, Carrey, Langevin, Jaworska, & Crawford, 2014; Ota et al., 2013; Pantazatos, Talati, Schneier, & Hirsch, 2014; Schnack et al., 2014; Serpa et al., 2014; Takizawa et al., 2014). Given that GAD and MD do not only show common but also separate neural correlates (Beesdo et al., 2009; Canu et al., 2015; Etkin & Schatzberg, 2011; Oathes, Patenaude, Schatzberg, & Etkin, 2015), machine learning might also be successfully applied to the problem of recognizing GAD patients and separating them from MD patients. Biomarkers do not have to be restricted, however, to neural information (Boksa, 2013; Singh & Rose, 2009). GAD and MDD have also been associated with altered levels of the stress hormone cortisol (Bhagwagar, Hafizi, & Cowen, 2005; Hek et al., 2013; Hinkelmann et al., 2012; Mantella et al., 2008). Results, however, are heterogeneous probably due to different sampling methods and ‐times or comorbidities.

This study aims to use machine learning on multimodal biobehavioral data from a sample of subjects exhibiting GAD, MD, both disorders, or no disorder. In a first step, supervised machine learning based on SVM was used on the entire sample aiming to detect cases versus noncases, that is subjects with a disorder versus healthy comparison subjects (case‐classification). In the second step, SVM was used on patients only in order to detect GAD, that is differentiate subjects with GAD only or GAD with comorbid MD from those with MD only (disorder‐classification). Clinical questionnaire data, cortisol release, and structural brain data including gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) volumes were used separately and in combination. Classification based on clinical data was hypothesized to perform well for case‐classification but not for disorder‐classification. Given inconsistent results related to cortisol release in GAD and MD, no specific hypotheses were formulated for the hormonal data. Previous work in GAD and MD alone, however, suggested abnormalities related to cortisol for each of these disorders (for reviews see Dedovic & Ngiam, 2015; Hilbert, Lueken, & Beesdo‐Baum, 2014; Staufenbiel, Penninx, Spijker, Elzinga, & van Rossum, 2013), therefore classification based on hormonal data was expected to perform above chance level for both classification problems. Brain imaging data were hypothesized to perform well for both classification problems and thus provide incremental value for the detection and classification of GAD. GM volume input data were restricted to anatomically defined brain regions repeatedly reported in the GAD and MD literature (reviews and meta‐analyses from Bora, Fornito, Pantelis, & Yucel, 2012; Bora, Harrison, Davey, Yucel, & Pantelis, 2012; Du et al., 2012; Hilbert et al., 2014; Kempton et al., 2011; Lai, 2013; Sacher et al., 2012) as recommended in Chu et al. (2012). As no brain regions were identified that were consistently reported in the GAD and MD literature for WM volume, WM input data were only restricted to anatomically defined WM areas in the brain in general.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

A convenience sample of subjects with GAD and/or MD as well as healthy comparison subjects were recruited from the outpatient centre for psychotherapy at the Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at TU Dresden and the general public. Inclusion criteria were a current diagnosis of GAD and/or MD according to DSM‐IV‐TR criteria (APA, 2000) for the clinical groups or no lifetime diagnosis of a mental disorder for the healthy comparison group. Subjects were excluded due to psychotropic medication, a nonremitted diagnosis of substance dependence or smoking of more than 10 cigarettes per day or inability to safely obtain a MRI scan. As a result, n = 19 subjects with a diagnosis of GAD (n = 12 with comorbid MD), n = 14 subjects with a diagnosis of MD without GAD and n = 24 healthy comparison subjects were included. Current and lifetime diagnoses were determined using the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (DIA‐X/M‐CIDI; Wittchen & Pfister, 1997) and confirmed by experienced clinicians. Appendix S1 provides an overview about comorbid disorders within the clinical groups. The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990), Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996), Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale‐12 (IUS‐12; Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007) and the trait version of the State‐Trait‐Anxiety‐Index (STAI‐T; Spielberger, Gorssuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) were used as additional dimensional measures for characterizing all groups. MRI data of the GAD and healthy subjects included in this analysis have been used previously to investigate structural alterations in GAD (Hilbert et al., 2015). While the previous analysis aimed at informing neurostructural disease models, the present analysis chose a complementary view by testing the predictive value of brain morphology as a putative differential diagnostic marker for the individual patient. The study protocol complied with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2008. It was approved by the local ethics committee (EK13012009). Subjects provided written informed consent before participating in the study.

2.2. Analysis of demographic and clinical data

Chi‐square tests and univariate analyses of variance were used for the analysis of demographic and clinical data as appropriate. Subsequent post hoc tests were used for pairwise comparisons. The level of significance was set at p < .05. SPSS 23 (IBM, New York, NY, USA) was used for all calculations. Clinical questionnaire sum scores of the PSWQ, BDI, IUS‐12, and STAI‐T were subsequently used as input data for classification.

2.3. Acquisition and analysis of cortisol data

To determine the cortisol release saliva samples were acquired using Salivettes “code blue” (Saarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) at six time points over the course of the experimental procedure, including samples ca. 10 min before scanning, directly before scanning, and after four different MRI scans including three different tasks and a structural scan, covering a total of 100 min. Samples were stored at −20°C until being assayed using a commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay (IBL RE 62011) at the Chair of Biopsychology of the TU Dresden (Prof. Dr. Clemens Kirschbaum). Cortisol values were log‐transformed to reach normal distribution. For an estimation of the total cortisol release we calculated the area under the curve with respect to the ground (Fekedulegn et al., 2007; Pruessner, Kirschbaum, Meinlschmid, & Hellhammer, 2003). One subject was excluded from further analyses due to an incomplete cortisol profile.

2.4. Structural MRI data acquisition and preprocessing

Imaging data were acquired on a 3‐Tesla Trio‐Tim MRI whole‐body scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with a 12 channel head coil located at the Neuroimaging Center of the TU Dresden. A magnetization‐prepared rapid gradient echo imaging sequence (MPRAGE; TE = 2.26 ms, TR = 1,900 ms, flip angle = 9°, FOV = 256 × 256 mm, matrix = 256 × 256) with 176 slices and an isotonic voxel size of 1 × 1 × 1 mm was used. The VBM8 toolbox (http://www.neuro.uni-jena.de/vbm/download/) for SPM8 (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm8/) was used to segment all images into GM, WM, and cerebrospinal fluid. Subsequently, the segmented data were modulated and DARTEL‐normalized (Ashburner, 2007) to MNI space. During this step, voxel sizes were changed to 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 mm resolution. An 8‐mm full‐width half‐maximum Gaussian kernel was used for smoothing of the data. The resulting images were checked for artefacts and included in the subsequent analyses.

2.5. Pattern recognition

A total of eight separate classification analyses were conducted, depending on four input data modalities (clinical scores, cortisol data, GM data, WM data) and two classification problems: First, a classifier was trained to correctly classify subjects from both clinical groups (GAD and MD groups) as cases and subjects from the healthy comparison group as noncases. This included 33 subjects with a disorder and 24 HC subjects. Second, only GAD and MD subjects were used and the classifier was trained to correctly classify subjects according to their diagnostic category as GAD subjects (independently of whether comorbidity was present) or MD subjects. This included 19 subjects with GAD and 14 MD‐only subjects. The following procedure was applied for all separate analyses: clinical questionnaire scores, cortisol release, GM maps, and WM maps were used as input for the PRoNTo toolbox (http://www.mlnl.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pronto/; Schrouff, Rosa, et al., 2013). For the MRI data analyses, an overall mask was used to restrict analyses to voxels for which every subject was able to provide data. An additional region‐of‐interest (ROI) mask restricting analysis to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), amygdala, prefrontal and orbitofrontal areas, the putamen and nucleus caudate and the hippocampus and thalamus was applied for classification based on GM data given the recommendation to use feature selection based on prior knowledge if prior knowledge is available (Chu et al., 2012). Please see Appendix S2 for an additional whole‐brain approach. These regions were anatomically defined according to the automated anatomical labeling atlas (aal; Tzourio‐Mazoyer et al., 2002) as implemented in the wfu pickatlas toolbox (Maldjian, Laurienti, & Burdette, 2004; Maldjian, Laurienti, Kraft, & Burdette, 2003). An additional ROI mask restricting analysis to WM according to the talairach daemon as implemented in the wfu pickatlas toolbox (Lancaster, Summerln, Rainey, Freitas, & Fox, 1997; Lancaster et al., 2000; Maldjian et al., 2003, 2004) was applied for classification based on WM data. Given the relative lack of prior studies reporting WM volume data in GAD no additional ROIs were used for WM data. Input data were mean centered and normalized for all analyses. SVMs were used for classification within a leave‐one‐out cross‐validation (LOOCV) framework. Sensitivity, specificity, and balanced accuracy of the resulting classification solution were calculated and permutation tests based on 5,000 iterations were used to assess the level of statistical significance set at p < .05. Weight‐maps and rank‐orders of the regional weight averages were calculated for the GM data as described in Schrouff, Cremers, et al. (2013).

Beyond classification based on a single input data modality all available data was also integrated into a single decision on group membership and tested. Weight‐adjusted voting for ensembles of classifiers (WAVE; Kim, Kim, Moon, & Ahn, 2011) weights the results from the single classifiers according to which classifiers performed better on difficult cases (i.e. cases which are often misclassified) and allows for the calculation of classifier‐weights and case‐weights. The classifier‐weights can be used to achieve a final decision. For applying WAVE, however, data in every modality for every subject are needed. The subject with incomplete cortisol data was therefore excluded from all following analyses. As WAVE requires assessing the performance of the classifiers before the resulting weights can be used on a new case, a nested LOOCV framework was applied for the integration of classifiers, thus guaranteeing independence of predictions. Classifiers were trained and tested using LOOCV to assess the performance of each classifier for each subject and derive the classifier‐ and subject‐weights in an inner fold. Afterwards, classifiers and their corresponding weights were used to classify a new subject neither part of the training nor test sets in an outer fold. This procedure was again rotated in a LOOCV scheme. For significance testing of the combined classification, permutation testing was used as well: the classifier‐weights resulting from the inner fold were used on permuted labels and the frequency of resulting predictions that were more accurate than the true prediction were counted. This procedure was done for 5,000 iterations. The p‐value was subsequently calculated by dividing the number of better predictions during permutation testing by the number of permutations.

3. Results

3.1. Sample characteristics

Table 1 depicts the sample characteristics per group. GAD (with and without MD), MD and healthy comparison subjects were comparable regarding sex, age, handedness, and education. They were also comparable in smoking status and overall cortisol release. GAD and MD groups showed significantly higher scores compared to the healthy comparison group in all clinical questionnaires. Clinical groups revealed comparable scores in each questionnaire except the intolerance of uncertainty scale‐12 (Carleton et al., 2007), for which GAD subjects scored significantly higher than MD subjects.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics. Means (SD) except where noted

HC (n = 24) GAD (n = 19) MD (n = 14) χ2/F (df) p
Sociodemographic characteristics
Female sex (n, %) 17 (70.8) 16 (84.2) 12 (85.7) 1.653 (2) .438
Right‐handed (n, %) 21 (87.5) 17 (89.5) 11 (78.6) 0.875 (2) .646
Secondary school (n, %) 18 (75.0) 12 (63.2) 12 (85.7) 3.551 (2) .470
Nonsmoker (n, %) 22 (95.7) 19 (100.0) 13 (92.9) 1.262 (2) .532
Age in years (mean, SD) 32.25 (9.33) 33.47 (8.90) 29.86 (11.71) 0.553 (2) .578
Clinical characteristics (mean, SD)
PSWQa 36.00 (9.98) 62.00 (6.22) 57.43 (12.06) 45.461 (2) <.001
BDIa 4.50 (4.82) 21.16 (7.37) 21.36 (9.14) 40.485 (2) <.001
I US‐12b 25.75 (6.72) 41.00 (7.03) 32.71 (9.25) 21.899 (2) <.001
STAI‐Ta 33.58 (6.77) 56.16 (7.11) 55.00 (7.04) 70.254 (2) <.001
Cortisol release
log‐AUC 199.55 (66.05) 159.85 (38.76) 196.61 (70.30) 2.549 (2) .088
Open in a new tab

HC, healthy control group; GAD, generalized anxiety disorder group; MD, major depressive disorder group; PSWQ, Penn State Worry Questionnaire; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory‐II; IUS‐12, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale‐12; STAI‐T, State‐Trait‐Anxiety‐Index, Trait version; log‐AUC, log‐transformed area under the curve.

a

GAD + MDD > controls: p < .001.

b

GAD + MDD > controls: p < .01, GAD > MD: p < .01.

3.2. Case‐classification

Case‐classification using clinical information resulted in almost perfect balanced accuracy (96.40%, p < .001, sensitivity: 96.97%, specificity: 95.83%; see Figure 1). Table 2 shows the weighting of the clinical data for classification. This indicates that particularly the STAI‐T scores were important for differentiating cases from noncases. Applying the cortisol data to the same classification problem resulted only in poor balanced accuracy (38.02%, p = .84, sensitivity: 59.38%, specificity: 16.67%).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Sensitivity and specificity of case‐classification and disorder‐classification by data modality in percent. Upper half: case‐classification; lower half: disorder‐classification. gm: Gray matter; wm: white matter

Table 2.

Weight averages by clinical scores

Rank Case‐classification Disorder‐classification
Score Weight abs. Weight perc. Score Weight abs. Weight perc.
1 STAI‐T 0.7977 45.10 IUS‐12 0.9331 60.58
2 PSWQ 0.4366 24.69 BDI 0.2629 17.07
3 BDI 0.3902 22.06 PSWQ 0.1934 12.55
4 IUS‐12 0.1442 8.15 STAI‐T 0.1508 9.79
Open in a new tab

GAD, generalized anxiety disorder group; MD, major depressive disorder group; PSWQ, Penn State Worry Questionnaire; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory‐II; IUS‐12, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale‐12; STAI‐T, State‐Trait‐Anxiety‐Index, trait version; Weight abs., mean of absolute weight values; Weight perc., percentage of weight values of this score relative to the sum of all weight values of all scores for the respective classification problem.

Case‐classification using GM data resulted in a balanced accuracy of 58.71% (p = .09, sensitivity: 75.76%, specificity: 41.67%). Table 3 shows the averaged weights of the brain regions according to aal. Particularly the putamen and amygdala were important for case‐classification while areas such as the hippocampus or thalamus were ranked as comparably less important for both classification problems. The same classification problem with WM data resulted in a low and insignificant balanced accuracy of 43.18% (p > .66; sensitivity: 69.70%, specificity: 16.67%).

Table 3.

Weight averages by included region

Rank Case‐classification Disorder‐classification
Area Side Weight abs. Weight perc. Voxels Area Side Weight abs. Weight perc. Voxels
1 Putamen R 0.008225 7.36 693 Superior frontal gyrus L 0.005132 5.33 2,426
2 Amygdala R 0.006528 5.84 248 Middle frontal gyrus R 0.005091 5.48 3,906
3 Middle frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.005307 4.75 915 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis R 0.005011 5.40 1,593
4 Middle frontal gyrus R 0.004982 4.46 3,811 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis R 0.004954 5.33 1,077
5 Putamen L 0.004955 4.44 652 Nucleus caudate R 0.004559 4.91 934
6 Nucleus caudate R 0.004718 4.22 922 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis L 0.004533 4.88 1,858
7 Superior frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.004607 4.12 943 Superior frontal gyrus R 0.004340 4.67 1,691
8 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis R 0.004562 4.08 1,074 Middle frontal gyrus L 0.004138 4.46 3,344
9 Amygdala L 0.004442 3.98 220 Superior medial frontal gyrus L 0.004030 4.34 2,287
10 Middle frontal gyrus L 0.004413 3.95 3,307 Superior frontal gyrus L 0.003939 4.24 2,898
11 Superior frontal gyrus L 0.003974 3.56 2,389 Inferior frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.003661 3.94 1,523
12 Superior frontal gyrus R 0.003886 3.48 2,806 Middle frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.003616 3.89 762
13 Anterior cingulate gyrus L 0.003604 3.23 1,396 Amygdala R 0.003056 3.29 248
14 Nucleus caudate L 0.003440 3.08 857 Inferior frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.003012 3.24 1,529
15 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis R 0.003423 3.06 1,563 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis L 0.002931 3.16 806
16 Hippocampus L 0.003387 3.03 918 Anterior cingulate gyrus R 0.002812 3.03 1,307
17 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis L 0.003373 3.02 800 Medial frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.002793 3.01 929
18 Hippocampus R 0.003352 3.00 944 Superior frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.002753 2.96 934
19 Inferior frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.003259 2.92 1,511 Amygdala L 0.002355 2.54 220
20 Inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis L 0.002973 2.66 1829 Putamen R 0.002345 2.52 811
21 Superior medial frontal gyrus R 0.002962 2.65 1,676 Nucleus caudate L 0.002193 2.36 868
22 Middle frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.002909 2.60 758 Hippocampus L 0.002095 2.26 918
23 Anterior cingulate gyrus R 0.002835 2.54 1,304 Anterior cingulate gyrus L 0.001897 2.04 1,396
24 Thalamus L 0.002756 2.47 628 Superior frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.001869 2.01 954
25 Superior medial frontal gyrus L 0.002705 2.42 2,273 Medial frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.001861 2.00 662
26 Inferior frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.002517 2.25 1,520 Medial frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.001810 1.95 824
27 Superior frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.002093 1.87 931 Putamen L 0.001670 1.80 706
28 Medial frontal gyrus, orbital R 0.002088 1.87 823 Hippocampus R 0.001664 1.79 945
29 Thalamus R 0.001953 1.75 724 Thalamus L 0.001555 1.67 628
30 Medial frontal gyrus, orbital L 0.001491 1.33 653 Thalamus R 0.001193 1.28 765
Open in a new tab

L, left side; R, right side. Area, brain region according to the automated anatomical labeling atlas (Tzourio‐Mazoyer et al., 2002); Weight abs., mean of absolute weight values of included all voxels within the region (Schrouff, Cremers, et al., 2013); Weight perc., percentage of normalized weight values of this region relative to the sum of all weight values of all regions for the respective classification problem. Voxels, number of voxels included.

Combining data from all four modalities using WAVE resulted in a balanced accuracy of 90.10% (p < .001) with 84.38% sensitivity and 95.83% specificity. Classifiers based on clinical questionnaire data were weighted significantly higher than classifiers based on neuroimaging and hormonal data (mean‐weights: clinical data: 0.56, GM data: 0.21, WM data: 0.13, cortisol data: 0.10; all ps < .001).

3.3. Disorder‐classification

Classification of GAD versus MD subjects using clinical questionnaire information resulted in a poor solution (balanced accuracy: 56.58%, p > .22, sensitivity: 63.16%, specificity: 50.00%). Here, particularly IUS‐12 scores provided information for classification (Table 2). In contrast, applying the cortisol data to the same classification problem resulted in good balanced accuracy (74.60%, p = .0088, sensitivity: 77.78%, specificity: 71.43%).

Disorder‐classification using GM data resulted in 68.05% balanced accuracy (p = .034, sensitivity: 78.95%, specificity: 57.14%). For this classification problem, the putamen and amygdala contributed less information while various frontal areas were of greater importance. Classification using WM data was less accurate (balanced accuracy: 58.27%, p > .15; sensitivity: 73.68%, specificity: 42.86%).

Combining data from all four modalities using WAVE resulted in a nominally lower balanced accuracy of 67.46% (p = .0268, sensitivity: 77.78%, specificity: 57.14%) than cortisol or GM accuracy alone. Classifiers based on cortisol data and GM data were weighted significantly higher than classifiers based on WM and clinical questionnaire data (ps < .001), which were of comparable size (p = .579). Classifiers based on cortisol data were also weighted significantly higher than classifiers based on GM data (p < .001; mean‐weights: clinical data: 0.17, cortisol data: 0.37, GM data: 0.28, WM data: 0.18).

Results from the additional analyses using whole‐brain data were less accurate in classification than the results based on ROIs for separate classifiers but comparable for the combined approach. Please see Appendix S2 for further details.

4. Discussion

Generalized anxiety disorder is a common and impairing disorder but recognition, diagnosis and differentiation from depression is a well‐known problem hampering treatment decisions. This proof‐of‐concept paper explored whether classifying subjects according to their clinical, hormonal, or neurostructural correlates yields accuracy rates beyond chance level, and whether combining data from different modalities improves classification. In a first analysis, subjects with a disorder and healthy comparison subjects were used to classify cases, whereas in a second analysis, subject with GAD and/or MD were used to classify GAD. The following main results emerged: (1) For case‐classification, clinical questionnaire scores clearly outperformed cortisol and MRI data, which yielded only poor results. (2) For the disorder‐classification, however, an inverse pattern emerged, with clinical questionnaire scores performing only on chance level and being outperformed by cortisol and MRI data, thus implying distinct (neuro‐)biological correlates for GAD and MD.

4.1. Differentiating cases from non‐cases (case‐classification)

Classification based on clinical data yielded very good results for case‐classification but only results on chance level for disorder‐classification. This result is also what would be expected when inspecting the basic sample characteristics. Clinical questionnaire scores were significantly different between the clinical groups and the HC group. Classification weights suggest that the STAI‐T scores provided most information for case‐classification, and indeed STAI‐T scores show a combination of high mean differences between the clinical and HC groups and relatively small standard deviations, resulting in the most marked difference overall. However, as this predictive approach is multivariate in nature, caution should be taken when interpreting singular features, as only the entire pattern holds predictive accuracy.

Contrary to clinical data, case‐classification using cortisol and MRI data yielded only poor results. Nonsignificant results were achieved for GM data, WM data, and cortisol. This finding is in line with previous research. Previous studies reported differences between GAD or MDD compared to healthy controls for cortisol (Bhagwagar et al., 2005; Hek et al., 2013; Hinkelmann et al., 2012; Mantella et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2011; Steudte et al., 2011; Ulrike, Reinhold, & Dirk, 2013; Vreeburg et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2015) but the exact nature of these differences was mixed and some studies did not find such differences (Burke, Davis, Otte, & Mohr, 2005; see also the meta‐analysis by Vythilingam et al., 2004). The heterogeneity of prior studies can be attributed to methodological differences in data collection (e.g. diurnal profiles, awakening response, and stress response) or sample characteristics (e.g. age or comorbidities). We here assessed the cortisol release in a 100 min window during the experimental investigation. Because MRI scanning can be perceived as stressful situation, including a stress‐related cortisol reaction (Muehlhan, Lueken, Wittchen, & Kirschbaum, 2011), our data are rather comparable to a challenging situation instead of “baseline” release or diurnal profiles. Few data are available for GAD patients exposed to challenging situations. A study in adolescents with different anxiety disorders including GAD indicates no differences between GAD and healthy subjects as well (Gerra et al., 2000). The result was contrary to hypotheses for MRI data as brain anatomical differences in GAD and MD in areas such as the amygdala or parts of the basal ganglia have been repeatedly reported (Bora, Fornito, et al., 2012; Bora, Harrison, et al. 2012; Hilbert et al., 2014; Kempton et al., 2011). These areas were also indicated as most important for case‐classification in this study. The inability of the SVM to classify cases versus noncases based on cortisol and structural imaging data with better accuracy than questionnaire data alone might be related to the fact that subjects with different mental disorders were accumulated in one group. SVMs are linear classification algorithms. The inclusion of subjects with different disorders in one group also leads to the inclusion of brain scans with anatomical changes in different directions, for example in the case of GAD and MD increased and decreased GM volumes in certain frontal areas. The difficulty of finding a linear decision function to reliably separate these both disorder groups with their partly diverging abnormalities from the mean of HC subjects might explain the poor results achieved for the classification using MRI data here and likewise apply to the cortisol data.

4.2. Differentiating GAD from MD (disorder‐classification)

Separation of GAD and MD subjects based on clinical questionnaire data only resulted in poor accuracy. GAD and MD groups were very comparable regarding the range of questionnaire scores with significant differences being present only in the IUS‐12. Hence, the IUS‐12 most prominently contributed to the disorder‐classification. This is in line with the hypotheses derived from studies reporting that GAD is difficult to diagnose in primary care settings (Calleo et al., 2009; Munk‐Jorgensen et al., 2006; Vermani et al., 2011; Wittchen et al., 2002). We are not aware of studies in more specialized settings or in settings using more standardized diagnostic instruments, where diagnostic classification may be more accurate. On the other hand, while both the PSWQ and IUS‐12 measure constructs closely related to GAD, neither worrying nor intolerance of uncertainty are exclusively related to GAD but also present in MD (Carleton et al., 2012; Chelminski & Zimmerman, 2003; Gentes & Ruscio, 2011; Starcevic, 1995). Screening questionnaires designed specifically for GAD such as the GAD‐7, the ASQ or dimensional ratings such as the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM‐5 (dimensional scale for GAD: GAD‐D; Beesdo‐Baum et al., 2012; Lebeau et al., 2012) may therefore be better suited for the task of detecting GAD and might have supported diagnostic classification. Generally, the integration of 14 studies in a meta‐analysis by Plummer, Manea, Trepel, and McMillan (2016) indicated good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of GAD in different settings. Clinical interviews such as the SCID (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1997) or MINI (Sheehan et al., 1998) served as reference. Fewer data are available for the GAD‐D for which good sensitivity but only moderate specificity have been reported (Beesdo‐Baum et al., 2012). Particularly screening instruments such as the GAD‐7 might therefore have provided additional information beyond the PSWQ and IUS‐12.

Classifiers based on cortisol and MRI data performed better for the disorder‐classification. Correct GAD classification rates of 74.60%, 68.05%, and 58.27% were achieved for cortisol, GM, and WM data. While these accuracies are not sufficient for clinical use at this stage and the proof‐of‐concept nature of this study has to be kept in mind as well, these findings still provide first evidence that (neuro‐)biological markers may provide incremental value supplementing clinical information. Accuracy for disorder‐classification is overall comparable to the results of proof‐of‐concept studies based on structural MRI data in other mental disorders such as MD which were reported to range from 67.6% to 90% (Costafreda, Chu, Ashburner, & Fu, 2009; Mwangi, Ebmeier, Matthews, & Steele, 2012; Patel et al., 2015). It is important to note that classification in this study was successful although a substantial proportion of GAD patients exhibited a comorbid depressive disorder. Inspection of the features related to classification revealed for cortisol that GAD subjects showed significantly lower cortisol release during the investigation. This is in line with the meta‐analysis by Burke et al. (2005) indicating cortisol release in response to psychological stress in MD being comparable to healthy subjects but contrary to a report indicating also comparable cortisol release in GAD (Gerra et al., 2000). However, interpretation of the GAD result is somewhat difficult as this is the only study on cortisol release in response to stress in GAD but it consisted only of adolescent subjects and also included other anxiety disorders besides GAD. To our best knowledge, cortisol data has not been used to support classification individual subjects so far.

Inspection of the brain areas associated with classification accuracy based on GM data suggests that mainly frontal and prefrontal areas provided information for differentiating GAD and MD. There is no study directly comparing GM volumes in pure GAD and pure MD, but results from work investigating structural correlates within one of the disorders suggest decreased GM volume in frontal areas for MD (Bora, Fornito, et al., 2012; Bora, Harrison, et al. 2012; Du et al., 2012; Kempton et al., 2011; Sacher et al., 2012), whereas increased GM volume has been reported for GAD (Schienle, Ebner, & Schafer, 2011). Results for GAD are inconsistent (Hilbert et al., 2014).

Findings from separate classification were overall in line with the previous literature: clinical information performed well for case‐classification but not for disorder‐classification, while the reversed pattern was found for cortisol and MRI data. As a consequence, it seemed reasonable to combine both types of information. Accuracy rates resulting from this combined approach were comparable to accuracy rates resulting from the best respective modality. The combined approach classified more than ninety percent of all subjects correctly as cases and noncases and about two‐thirds of all clinical subjects correctly as GAD subjects or pure MD subjects. Additionally, for both the case‐classification and the disorder‐classification, sensitivity was higher than specificity, that is most cases and GAD subjects were recognized as such. This is advantageous given the consequences which would follow this decision under real‐world circumstances, such as intervention. These results indicate that diagnostic markers based on biological information such as cortisol levels or brain anatomy might be helpful for complementing clinical data in the future, mostly in situations where classification is difficult.

4.3. Limitations

There are limitations to the results obtained in this study. The aim of this proof‐of‐concept paper was to demonstrate how (neuro‐)biological data might provide incremental value for the classification of GAD on an individual subject level. The results warrant further attention but do also indicate the need for improving accuracy rates in future studies. At the moment, the potential biomarkers investigated here would likely be outperformed by standardized clinical interviews in terms of accuracy and cost‐efficiency. Still, biomarkers bear potential for their usage in clinical contexts of mental disorders as, for example first studies provided promising findings for the prediction of treatment outcomes (Hahn et al., 2015; Levine, Rabinowitz, Uher, & Kapur, 2015; Uher, Tansey, Malki, & Perlis, 2012). The sample size was small in this study, groups were unbalanced and GAD subjects had to be separated only from one other related disorder. Future studies should try to employ larger balanced samples and might want to include other disorders that share some characteristics with GAD as well, such as other anxiety disorders or somatoform disorders. This way, the task of recognizing GAD and separating GAD from other disorders would be harder and show more resemblance to the task in real‐world clinical settings. While the inclusion of comorbidity in general made the clinical groups more heterogeneous and might therefore have reduced the accuracy of the classification, it also enhanced the similarity of the study samples to clinical GAD populations and therefore ensures the ecological validity of this investigation. Testing the classifiers on a second and independent dataset instead of in a LOOCV scheme would additionally increase the degree to which results can be generalized and are externally valid. Classification accuracy might also be improved by including specific screening instruments for GAD such as the GAD‐7 or GAD‐D in the questionnaire modality or by including more sophisticated methods of measuring WM characteristics such as diffusion tensor imaging in neuroimaging modality (Wen, Steffens, Chen, & Zainal, 2014). Furthermore, future studies could include further modalities such as functional MRI data, (epi)genetic data, or behavioral data.

5. Conclusions

In this proof‐of‐concept study, we investigated the ability to accurately classify subjects according to the presence of a mental disorder and according to the presence of GAD using clinical questionnaire data, cortisol data, and structural MRI data. Results showed that cortisol and MRI data were particularly able to provide incremental value to the disorder‐classification of GAD subjects beyond clinical questionnaire data alone. Classification based on combined data resulted in significant accuracy rates as well. Thus it seems possible that MRI data might be able to facilitate the correct diagnosis of GAD in the future. Further research on this question is warranted.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Supporting information

 

Click here for additional data file. (285KB, doc)

Hilbert K, Lueken U, Muehlhan M, Beesdo‐Baum K. Separating generalized anxiety disorder from major depression using clinical, hormonal, and structural MRI data: A multimodal machine learning study. Brain Behav. 2017;7:e00633. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.633

Funding information

The research project was partly supported by internal grant funding from the Department of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany; without grant number). The funding source had no involvement in the study design, in data collection, analysis and interpretation, and in writing the report and the decision to publish

References

  1. Andlin‐Sobocki, P. , & Wittchen, H. U. (2005). Cost of anxiety disorders in Europe. European Journal of Neurology, 12, 39–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. APA (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision (DSM‐IV‐TR). Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashburner, J. (2007). A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. NeuroImage, 38, 95–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck, A. T. , Steer, R. A. , & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the beck depression inventory (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beesdo, K. , Lau, J. Y. F. , Guyer, A. E. , McClure‐Tone, E. B. , Monk, C. S. , Nelson, E. E. , … Pine, D. S. (2009). Common and distinct amygdala‐function perturbations in depressed vs anxious adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 275–285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beesdo, K. , Pine, D. S. , Lieb, R. , & Wittchen, H.‐U. (2010). Incidence and risk patterns of anxiety and depressive disorders and categorization of generalized anxiety disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 47–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beesdo‐Baum, K. , Klotsche, J. , Knappe, S. , Craske, M. G. , LeBeau, R. T. , Hoyer, J. , … Wittchen, H. U. (2012). Psychometric properties of the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM‐V in an unselected sample of German treatment seeking patients. Depression and Anxiety, 29, 1014–1024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhagwagar, Z. , Hafizi, S. , & Cowen, P. J. (2005). Increased salivary cortisol after waking in depression. Psychopharmacology, 182, 54–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boksa, P. (2013). A way forward for research on biomarkers for psychiatric disorders. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 38, 75–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bora, E. , Fornito, A. , Pantelis, C. , & Yucel, M. (2012). Gray matter abnormalities in Major Depressive Disorder: A meta‐analysis of voxel based morphometry studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 138, 9–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bora, E. , Harrison, B. J. , Davey, C. G. , Yucel, M. , & Pantelis, C. (2012). Meta‐analysis of volumetric abnormalities in cortico‐striatal‐pallidal‐thalamic circuits in major depressive disorder. Psychological Medicine, 42, 671–681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burke, H. M. , Davis, M. C. , Otte, C. , & Mohr, D. C. (2005). Depression and cortisol responses to psychological stress: A meta‐analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 846–856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Calleo, J. , Stanley, M. A. , Greisinger, A. , Wehmanen, O. , Johnson, M. , Novy, D. , … Kunik, M. (2009). Generalized anxiety disorder in older medical patients: Diagnostic recognition, mental health management and service utilization. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 16, 178–185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Canu, E. , Kostic, M. , Agosta, F. , Munjiza, A. , Ferraro, P. M. , Pesic, D. , … Filippi, M. (2015). Brain structural abnormalities in patients with major depression with or without generalized anxiety disorder comorbidity. Journal of Neurology, 262, 1255–1265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Carleton, R. N. , Mulvogue, M. K. , Thibodeau, M. A. , McCabe, R. E. , Antony, M. M. , & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2012). Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 468–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Carleton, R. N. , Norton, M. A. , & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Carter, R. M. , Wittchen, H. U. , Pfister, H. , & Kessler, R. C. (2001). One‐year prevalence of subthreshold and threshold DSM‐IV generalized anxiety disorder in a nationally representative sample. Depression and Anxiety, 13, 78–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chelminski, I. , & Zimmerman, M. (2003). Pathological worry in depressed and anxious patients. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 533–546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chu, C. , Hsu, A. L. , Chou, K. H. , Bandettini, P. , Lin, C. P. , & Neuroimaging, A. S. D. (2012). Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images. NeuroImage, 60, 59–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Costafreda, S. G. , Chu, C. , Ashburner, J. , & Fu, C. H. (2009). Prognostic and diagnostic potential of the structural neuroanatomy of depression. PLoS One, 4, e6353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dedovic, K. , & Ngiam, J. (2015). The cortisol awakening response and major depression: Examining the evidence. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 11, 1181–1189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Du, M. Y. , Wu, Q. Z. , Yue, Q. , Li, J. , Liao, Y. , Kuang, W. H. , … Gong, Q. Y. (2012). Voxelwise meta‐analysis of gray matter reduction in major depressive disorder. Progress in Neuro‐Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 36, 11–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Etkin, A. , & Schatzberg, A. F. (2011). Common abnormalities and disorder‐specific compensation during implicit regulation of emotional processing in generalized anxiety and major depressive disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 968–978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fekedulegn, D. B. , Andrew, M. E. , Burchfiel, C. M. , Violanti, J. M. , Hartley, T. A. , Charles, L. E. , & Miller, D. B. (2007). Area under the curve and other summary indicators of repeated waking cortisol measurements. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 651–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. First, M. , Spitzer, R. , Gibbon, M. , & Williams, J. (1997). Structured clinical interview for DSM‐IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gentes, E. L. , & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta‐analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive‐compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 923–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerra, G. , Zaimovic, A. , Zambelli, U. , Timpano, M. , Reali, N. , Bernasconi, S. , & Brambilla, F. (2000). Neuroendocrine responses to psychological stress in adolescents with anxiety disorder. Neuropsychobiology, 42, 82–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grotegerd, D. , Suslow, T. , Bauer, J. , Ohrmann, P. , Arolt, V. , Stuhrmann, A. , … Dannlowski, U. (2013). Discriminating unipolar and bipolar depression by means of fMRI and pattern classification: A pilot study. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 263, 119–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hahn, T. , Kircher, T. , Straube, B. , Wittchen, H. U. , Konrad, C. , Strohle, A. , … Lueken, U. (2015). Predicting treatment response to cognitive behavioral therapy in panic disorder with agoraphobia by integrating local neural information. JAMA Psychiatry, 72, 68–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hek, K. , Direk, N. , Newson, R. S. , Hofman, A. , Hoogendijk, W. J. G. , Mulder, C. L. , & Tiemeier, H. (2013). Anxiety disorders and salivary cortisol levels in older adults: A population‐based study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 300–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Herr, N. R. , Williams, J. W. , Benjamin, S. , & McDuffie, J. (2014). Does this patient have generalized anxiety or panic disorder? The rational clinical examination systematic review. Jama‐Journal of the American Medical Association, 312, 78–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hilbert, K. , Lueken, U. , & Beesdo‐Baum, K. (2014). Neural structures, functioning and connectivity in Generalized Anxiety Disorder and interaction with neuroendocrine systems: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 158, 114–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilbert, K. , Pine, D. S. , Muehlhan, M. , Lueken, U. , Steudte‐Schmiedgen, S. , & Beesdo‐Baum, K. (2015). Gray and white matter volume abnormalities in generalized anxiety disorder by categorical and dimensional characterization. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 234, 314–320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hinkelmann, K. , Moritz, S. , Botzenhardt, J. , Muhtz, C. , Wiedemann, K. , Kellner, M. , & Otte, C. (2012). Changes in cortisol secretion during antidepressive treatment and cognitive improvement in patients with major depression: A longitudinal study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 685–692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoffman, D. , Dukes, E. , & Wittchen, H.‐U. (2008). Human and economic burden of generalized anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 25, 72–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hunt, C. , Issakidis, C. , & Andrews, G. (2002). DSM‐IV generalized anxiety disorder in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well‐Being. Psychological Medicine, 32, 649–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kempton, M. J. , Salvador, Z. , Munafo, M. R. , Geddes, J. R. , Simmons, A. , Frangou, S. , & Williams, S. C. R. (2011). Structural neuroimaging studies in major depressive disorder meta‐analysis and comparison with bipolar disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 675–690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kessler, R. C. , Chiu, W. T. , Demler, O. , Merikangas, K. R. , & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12‐month DSM‐IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 617–627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kessler, R. C. , Petukhova, M. , Sampson, N. A. , Zaslavsky, A. M. , & Wittchen, H. U. (2012). Twelve‐month and lifetime prevalence and lifetime morbid risk of anxiety and mood disorders in the United States. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21, 169–184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim, H. , Kim, H. , Moon, H. , & Ahn, H. (2011). A weight‐adjusted voting algorithm for ensemble of classifiers. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 40, 437–449. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lai, C. H. (2013). Gray matter volume in major depressive disorder: A meta‐analysis of voxel‐based morphometry studies. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 211, 37–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lancaster, J. L. , Summerln, J. L. , Rainey, L. , Freitas, C. S. , & Fox, P. T. (1997). The Talairach Daemon, a database server for Talairach Atlas Labels. NeuroImage Clinical, 5, 633. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lancaster, J. L. , Woldorff, M. G. , Parsons, L. M. , Liotti, M. , Freitas, E. S. , Rainey, L. , … Fox, P. T. (2000). Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Human Brain Mapping, 10, 120–131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lebeau, R. T. , Glenn, D. E. , Hanover, L. N. , Beesdo‐Baum, K. , Wittchen, H. U. , & Craske, M. G. (2012). A dimensional approach to measuring anxiety for DSM‐5. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21, 258–272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Levine, S. Z. , Rabinowitz, J. , Uher, R. , & Kapur, S. (2015). Biomarkers of treatment outcome in schizophrenia: Defining a benchmark for clinical significance. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 25, 1578–1585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lim, L. , Marquand, A. , Cubillo, A. A. , Smith, A. B. , Chantiluke, K. , Simmons, A. , … Rubia, K. (2013). Disorder‐specific predictive classification of adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relative to autism using structural magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One, 8, 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lueken, U. , Hilbert, K. , Wittchen, H.‐U. , Reif, A. , & Hahn, T. (2015). Diagnostic classification of specific phobia subtypes using structural MRI data: A machine‐learning approach. Journal of Neural Transmission, 122, 123–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lueken, U. , Zierhut, K. C. , Hahn, T. , Straube, B. , Kircher, T. , Reif, A. , … Domschke, K. (2016). Neurobiological markers predicting treatment response in anxiety disorders: A systematic review and implications for clinical application. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 66, 143–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. MacMaster, F. P. , Carrey, N. , Langevin, L. M. , Jaworska, N. , & Crawford, S. (2014). Disorder‐specific volumetric brain difference in adolescent major depressive disorder and bipolar depression. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8, 119–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Maldjian, J. A. , Laurienti, P. J. , & Burdette, J. H. (2004). Precentral gyrus discrepancy in electronic versions of the Talairach atlas. NeuroImage, 21, 450–455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Maldjian, J. A. , Laurienti, P. J. , Kraft, R. A. , & Burdette, J. H. (2003). An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas‐based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage, 19, 1233–1239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mantella, R. C. , Butters, M. A. , Amico, J. A. , Mazumdar, S. , Rollman, B. L. , Begley, A. E. , … Lenze, E. J. (2008). Salivary cortisol is associated with diagnosis and severity of late‐life generalized anxiety disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33, 773–781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Meyer, T. J. , Miller, M. L. , Metzger, R. L. , & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Muehlhan, M. , Lueken, U. , Wittchen, H. U. , & Kirschbaum, C. (2011). The scanner as a stressor: Evidence from subjective and neuroendocrine stress parameters in the time course of a functional magnetic resonance imaging session. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 79, 118–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Munk‐Jorgensen, P. , Allgulander, C. , Dahl, A. A. , Foldager, L. , Holm, M. , Rasmussen, I. , … Wittchen, H. U. (2006). Prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder in general practice in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D. C.), 57, 1738–1744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mwangi, B. , Ebmeier, K. P. , Matthews, K. , & Steele, J. D. (2012). Multi‐centre diagnostic classification of individual structural neuroimaging scans from patients with major depressive disorder. Brain, 135, 1508–1521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Oathes, D. J. , Patenaude, B. , Schatzberg, A. F. , & Etkin, A. (2015). Neurobiological signatures of anxiety and depression in resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 77, 385–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ota, M. , Ishikawa, M. , Sato, N. , Hori, H. , Sasayama, D. , Hattori, K. , … Kunugi, H. (2013). Discrimination between schizophrenia and major depressive disorder by magnetic resonance imaging of the female brain. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 1383–1388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Pantazatos, S. P. , Talati, A. , Schneier, F. R. , & Hirsch, J. (2014). Reduced anterior temporal and hippocampal functional connectivity during face processing discriminates individuals with social anxiety disorder from healthy controls and panic disorder, and increases following treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39, 425–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Patel, M. J. , Andreescu, C. , Price, J. C. , Edelman, K. L. , Reynolds 3rd, C. F. , & Aizenstein, H. J. (2015). Machine learning approaches for integrating clinical and imaging features in late‐life depression classification and response prediction. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 30, 1056–1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Phillips, A. C. , Batty, G. D. , Gale, C. R. , Lord, J. M. , Arlt, W. , & Carroll, D. (2011). Major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and their comorbidity: Associations with cortisol in the Vietnam Experience Study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 682–690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Plummer, F. , Manea, L. , Trepel, D. , & McMillan, D. (2016). Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD‐7 and GAD‐2: A systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 39, 24–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Pruessner, J. C. , Kirschbaum, C. , Meinlschmid, G. , & Hellhammer, D. H. (2003). Two formulas for computation of the area under the curve represent measures of total hormone concentration versus time‐dependent change. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 916–931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sacher, J. , Neumann, J. , Funfstuck, T. , Soliman, A. , Villringer, A. , & Schroeter, M. L. (2012). Mapping the depressed brain: A meta‐analysis of structural and functional alterations in major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 142–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Savitz, J. B. , Rauch, S. L. , & Drevets, W. C. (2013). Clinical application of brain imaging for the diagnosis of mood disorders: The current state of play. Molecular Psychiatry, 18, 528–539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Schienle, A. , Ebner, F. , & Schafer, A. (2011). Localized gray matter volume abnormalities in generalized anxiety disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 261, 303–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Schnack, H. G. , Nieuwenhuis, M. , van Haren, N. E. , Abramovic, L. , Scheewe, T. W. , Brouwer, R. M. , … Kahn, R. S. (2014). Can structural MRI aid in clinical classification? A machine learning study in two independent samples of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and healthy subjects. NeuroImage, 84, 299–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schrouff, J. , Cremers, J. , Garraux, G. , Baldassarre, L. , Mourao‐Miranda, J. , & Phillips, C. (2013). Localizing and comparing weight maps generated from linear kernel machine learning models. In 2013 International Workshop on Pattern Recognition in NeuroImaging (PRNI 2013), 124–127. Philadelphia, PA: IEEE Computer Society Conference Publishing Services. [Google Scholar]
  69. Schrouff, J. , Rosa, M. J. , Rondina, J. M. , Marquand, A. F. , Chu, C. , Ashburner, J. , … Mourao‐Miranda, J. (2013). PRoNTo: Pattern recognition for neuroimaging toolbox. Neuroinformatics, 11, 319–337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Serpa, M. H. , Ou, Y. M. , Schaufelberger, M. S. , Doshi, J. , Ferreira, L. K. , Machado‐Vieira, R. , … Zanetti, M. V. (2014). Neuroanatomical classification in a population‐based sample of psychotic major depression and bipolar I disorder with 1 year of diagnostic stability. BioMed Research International, 706157, 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sheehan, D. V. , Lecrubier, Y. , Sheehan, K. H. , Amorim, P. , Janavs, J. , Weiller, E. , … Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The Mini‐International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM‐IV and ICD‐10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl. 20), 22–33; quiz 34–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Singh, I. , & Rose, N. (2009). Biomarkers in psychiatry. Nature, 460, 202–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Spielberger, C. D. , Gorssuch, R. L. , Lushene, P. R. , Vagg, P. R. , & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state‐trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. [Google Scholar]
  74. Spitzer, R. L. , Kroenke, K. , Williams, J. B. W. , & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder—The GAD‐7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Starcevic, V. (1995). Pathological worry in major depression—A preliminary‐report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 55–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Staufenbiel, S. M. , Penninx, B. W. J. H. , Spijker, A. T. , Elzinga, B. M. , & van Rossum, E. F. C. (2013). Hair cortisol, stress exposure, and mental health in humans: A systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 1220–1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Steudte, S. , Stalder, T. , Dettenborn, L. , Klumbies, E. , Foley, P. , Beesdo‐Baum, K. , & Kirschbaum, C. (2011). Decreased hair cortisol concentrations in generalised anxiety disorder. Psychiatry Research, 186, 310–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Takizawa, R. , Fukuda, M. , Kawasaki, S. , Kasai, K. , Mimura, M. , Pu, S. H. , … Application, J. P. P. (2014). Neuroimaging‐aided differential diagnosis of the depressive state. NeuroImage, 85, 498–507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Tzourio‐Mazoyer, N. , Landeau, B. , Papathanassiou, D. , Crivello, F. , Etard, O. , Delcroix, N. , … Joliot, M. (2002). Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single‐subject brain. NeuroImage, 15, 273–289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Uher, R. , Tansey, K. E. , Malki, K. , & Perlis, R. H. (2012). Biomarkers predicting treatment outcome in depression: What is clinically significant? Pharmacogenomics, 13, 233–240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Ulrike, S. , Reinhold, L. , & Dirk, H. (2013). Major depression in young girls is related to altered cortisol awakening response. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22, 379–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Vermani, M. , Marcus, M. , & Katzman, M. A. (2011). Rates of detection of mood and anxiety disorders in primary care: A descriptive, cross‐sectional study. Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 13, e1–e10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Vreeburg, S. A. , Hoogendijk, W. J. G. , van Pelt, J. , DeRijk, R. H. , Verhagen, J. C. M. , van Dyck, R. , … Penninx, B. W. J. H. (2009). Major depressive disorder and hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis activity results from a large cohort study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 617–626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Vythilingam, M. , Vermetten, E. , Anderson, G. M. , Luckenbaugh, D. , Anderson, E. R. , Snow, J. , … Bremner, J. D. (2004). Hippocampal volume, memory, and cortisol status in major depressive disorder: Effects of treatment. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 101–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Wei, J. X. , Sun, G. Z. , Zhao, L. S. , Yang, X. , Liu, X. , Lin, D. T. , … Ma, X. H. (2015). Analysis of hair cortisol level in first‐episodic and recurrent female patients with depression compared to healthy controls. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 299–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Wen, M. C. , Steffens, D. C. , Chen, M. K. , & Zainal, N. H. (2014). Diffusion tensor imaging studies in late‐life depression: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29, 1173–1184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Wittchen, H.‐U. , & Boyer, P. (1998). Screening for anxiety disorders. Sensitivity and specificity of the Anxiety Screening Questionnaire (ASQ‐15). British Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 10–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Wittchen, H. U. , Kessler, R. C. , Beesdo, K. , Krause, P. , Hofler, M. , & Hoyer, J. (2002). Generalized anxiety and depression in primary care: Prevalence, recognition, and management. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63(Suppl 8), 24–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Wittchen, H.‐U. , & Perkonigg, A. (1997). DIA‐X‐Screening Verfahren: Fragebogen DIA‐SSQ: Screening für psychische Störungen; Fragebogen DIA‐ASQ: Screening für Angststörungen; Fragebogen DIA‐DSQ: Screening für Depressionen. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets & Zeitlinger bv. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wittchen, H.‐U. , & Pfister, H. (1997). DIA‐X interview. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets & Zeitlinger. [Google Scholar]
  91. Wolfers, T. , Buitelaar, J. K. , Beckmann, C. , Franke, B. , & Marquand, A. F. (2015). From estimating activation locality to predicting disorder: A review of pattern recognition for neuroimaging‐based psychiatric diagnostics. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 328–349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

 

Click here for additional data file. (285KB, doc)

Articles from Brain and Behavior are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES