Skip to main content
PMC home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2018 Mar 28;75(5):484–492. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0123

Association of Brain Cortical Changes With Relapse in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

Dario Zaremba 1, Katharina Dohm 1, Ronny Redlich 1, Dominik Grotegerd 1, Robert Strojny 1, Susanne Meinert 1, Christian Bürger 1, Verena Enneking 1, Katharina Förster 1, Jonathan Repple 1, Nils Opel 1, Bernhard T Baune 2, Pienie Zwitserlood 3, Walter Heindel 4, Volker Arolt 1, Harald Kugel 4, Udo Dannlowski 1,✉
PMCID: PMC5875383  PMID: 29590315

Abstract

Importance

More than half of all patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experience a relapse within 2 years after recovery. It is unclear how relapse affects brain morphologic features during the course of MDD.

Objective

To use structural magnetic resonance imaging to identify morphologic brain changes associated with relapse in MDD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this longitudinal case-control study, patients with acute MDD at baseline and healthy controls were recruited from the University of Münster Department of Psychiatry from March 21, 2010, to November 14, 2014, and were reassessed from November 11, 2012, to October 28, 2016. Depending on patients’ course of illness during follow-up, they were subdivided into groups of patients with and without relapse. Whole-brain gray matter volume and cortical thickness of the anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, middle frontal gyrus, and insula were assessed via 3-T magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and 2 years later.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Gray matter was analyzed via group (no relapse, relapse, and healthy controls) by time (baseline and follow-up) analysis of covariance, controlling for age and total intracranial volume. Confounding factors of medication and depression severity were assessed.

Results

This study included 37 patients with MDD and a relapse (19 women and 18 men; mean [SD] age, 37.0 [12.7] years), 23 patients with MDD and without relapse (13 women and 10 men; mean [SD] age, 32.5 [10.5] years), and 54 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (24 women and 30 men; mean [SD] age, 37.5 [8.7] years). A significant group-by-time interaction controlling for age and total intracranial volume revealed that patients with relapse showed a significant decline of insular volume (difference, −0.032; 95% CI, −0.063 to −0.002; P = .04) and dorsolateral prefrontal volume (difference, −0.079; 95% CI, −0.113 to −0.045; P < .001) from baseline to follow-up. In patients without relapse, gray matter volume in these regions did not change significantly (insula: difference, 0.027; 95% CI, −0.012 to 0.066; P = .17; and dorsolateral prefrontal volume: difference, 0.023; 95% CI, −0.020 to 0.066; P = .30). Volume changes were not correlated with psychiatric medication or with severity of depression at follow-up. Additional analysis of cortical thickness showed an increase in the anterior cingulate cortex (difference, 0.073 mm; 95% CI, 0.023-0.123 mm; P = .005) and orbitofrontal cortex (difference, 0.089 mm; 95% CI, 0.032-0.147 mm; P = .003) from baseline to follow-up in patients without relapse.

Conclusion and Relevance

A distinct association of relapse in MDD with brain morphologic features was revealed using a longitudinal design. Relapse is associated with brain structures that are crucial for regulation of emotions and thus needs to be prevented. This study might be a step to guide future prognosis and maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent MDD.

This nonrandomized longitudinal study uses structural magnetic resonance imaging to identify morphologic brain changes associated with relapse in patients with major depressive disorder.

Key Points

Question

Is relapse in major depressive disorder associated with morphologic brain changes?

Findings

In this longitudinal, case-control, magnetic resonance imaging study, patients with major depressive disorder showed different trajectories of cortical gray matter changes depending on whether they experienced a relapse during the follow-up interval. These changes were not significantly associated with psychiatric medication or with severity of depression at follow-up.

Meaning

Relapse in major depressive disorder is associated with morphologic changes in brain regions that are crucial for regulation of emotions and cognitive control.

Introduction

Less than half of all patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) remain free of symptoms for 2 years after recovery.1 Rates of relapse increase markedly with subsequent episodes, which leads to a continuous high risk of chronicity and negative psychosocial consequences among these patients.2,3 Structural neuroimaging techniques may provide insights into the underlying neural mechanisms of relapse. In the long term, understanding the neuronal correlates could support prognosis of relapse and thus improve maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent MDD.

Major depressive disorder is associated with morphologic changes in specific brain areas, most prominently the hippocampus,4,5,6,7 insula,8,9,10,11 and the prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC).6,11,12,13,14 Cross-sectional studies have repeatedly reported that these brain alterations are strongly influenced by the course of illness (eg, number of recurrent episodes,8,15 duration of untreated depression,16 and early age of depression onset17). These findings could indicate that depression causes damage to the brain that evolves over time and is most obvious in individuals with progressive and recurrent MDD.18 However, this conclusion must be treated with caution, since only correlative statements can be drawn from cross-sectional studies.

Despite intense research on the clinical correlates of morphologic brain alterations in patients with MDD, longitudinal studies in well-characterized samples are needed to gauge neurobiological changes due to relapse. So far, most longitudinal studies have investigated morphologic changes in dependence of remission status at follow-up assessment. Several studies found that patients whose MDD was not in remission at follow-up showed significantly more volume decline compared with patients whose MDD was in remission (eg, in the hippocampus, anterior cingulate cortex [ACC], and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]).19,20,21,22 Other studies showed normalized volume and thickness in the hippocampus, rostral middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and OFC in patients who achieved remission.23,24 However, to evaluate the association between brain alterations and relapse, it is crucial to consider the course of illness between scans, which has been neglected by most studies. To our knowledge, only 1 study reported an association of gray matter reductions and the number of relapses in a 7-year follow-up,25 but control for confounding variables (eg, medication) was lacking in the statistical analyses. Furthermore, most results are limited to geriatric populations, and younger samples are required for generalizability of these findings.21,22,23,26,27,28,29,30 Most previous studies used restricted region-of-interest analyses rather than whole-brain approaches, which a priori limited the outcomes to a subset of regions of the brain.31

To enhance our understanding of structural brain alterations in patients with recurrent MDD, the aim of our study was to investigate morphologic changes in patients as a function of relapse during the follow-up interval using both whole-brain voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and region-of-interest analysis by FreeSurfer (https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu). We hypothesized that patients with at least 1 relapse between scans show more pronounced reductions in gray matter than patients who achieved stable remission during the follow-up interval. Severity of depression at follow-up was controlled for to investigate whether potential brain changes merely reflect state-dependent differences owing to remission status, or rather result from relapse. Our longitudinal design also implemented correlational control for confounding effects of psychiatric medication.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

The study comprised 64 patients with MDD and 59 matched healthy controls who were recruited from the University of Münster Department of Psychiatry from March 21, 2010, to November 14, 2014, and were reassessed from November 11, 2012, to October 28, 2016. See eAppendix 1 in the Supplement for further information on recruitment and exclusion criteria. All participants underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and approximately 2 years later (mean [SD], 2.3 [0.3] years). Following data quality checks (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement), the final sample consisted of 60 patients and 54 healthy controls. Participants received financial compensation. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the medical faculty of the University of Münster and all participants provided written informed consent.

Participants received diagnoses according to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV32 at both time points. At baseline, medical records were consulted to validate the diagnosis and duration of the index episode of MDD. We used structured interviews to retrospectively assess the type and dose of psychopharmacologic treatment at baseline and follow-up (Table 1), as well as the days between scans without medication. We used this information to compute a composite medication index (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale33 was applied to capture the severity of symptoms at both time points. Furthermore, we assessed familial risk for MDD and childhood maltreatment with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire34 as known risk factors for both MDD and morphologic brain changes.35,36,37

Table 1. Distribution of Psychotropic Medication.

Medication Baseline Follow-up
Patients With MDD Without Relapse (n = 23) Patients With MDD With Relapse (n = 37) P Valuea Patients With MDD Without Relapse (n = 23) Patients With MDD With Relapse (n = 37) P Valuea
Antidepressants, No. (%)
SSRI 6 (26) 8 (22) .69 5 (22) 5 (14) .41
SSNRI 11 (48) 19 (51) .79 7 (30) 19 (51) .11
NaSSA 4 (17) 3 (8) .28 2 (9) 2 (5) .62
NDRI 0 2 (5) .26 0 2 (5) .26
Tricyclic antidepressant 0 1 (3) .43 0 2 (5) .26
MAO inhibitor 0 0 NA 0 0 NA
Antipsychotics, No. (%) 3 (13) 10 (27) .20 2 (9) 8 (22) .19
Mood stabilizers, No. (%) 0 2 (5) .26 1 (4) 4 (11) .38
Other, No. (%) 6 (26) 7 (19) .51 0 2 (5) .26
None, No. (%) 1 (4) 3 (8) .57 11 (48) 10 (27) .10
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: MAO, monoamine oxidase; MDD, major depressive disorder; NA, not applicable; NaSSA, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant; NDRI, norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor; SSNRI, selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

a

Determined by use of the χ2 test.

All patients were experiencing a moderate or severe depressive episode at baseline, resulting in inpatient treatment. Depending on the course of illness between scans, we divided patients into 2 groups: patients with no subsequent episodes (no relapse; n = 23), and patients who experienced at least 1 additional episode (relapse; n = 37). We applied DSM-IV criteria using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV for assessing relapse during the follow-up interval and determining full remission (absence of symptoms for at least 2 months), which was required before diagnosing a new episode. Given the limited number of possible episodes in a 2-year interval, and the insufficient number of patients with more than 1 episode, we refrained from assessing the parametric effects of the number of relapses.

At baseline, patient groups did not differ significantly in clinical and sociodemographic variables. However, patients with relapse had significantly higher Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores at follow-up than did patients without relapse. All 3 groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, educational level, and time between scans (Table 2). For further information on sample matching, see eAppendix 1 in the Supplement.

Table 2. Sample Characteristics.

Characteristic Patients With MDD Without Relapse (n = 23) Patients With MDD With Relapse (n = 37) Controls (n = 54) P Valuea P Valueb
Baseline
Female sex, No. (%) 13 (57) 19 (51) 24 (44) .60c .70c
Age, mean (SD), y 32.5 (10.5) 37.0 (12.7) 37.5 (8.7) .15 .16
Educational level, mean (SD), y 15.2 (2.8) 14.7 (2.2) 15.1 (2.4) .58d .31e
HDRS score, mean (SD) 22.4 (3.9) 22.9 (5.1) 0.6 (1.1) <.001 .73
Previous lifetime depressive episodes, mean (SD), No. 2.7 (1.5) 3.3 (2.3) NA NA .48e
Duration of index depressive episode, mean (SD), wk 15.3 (24.2) 19.1 (17.6) NA NA .36e
Familial risk for affective disorders, No. (%) 15 (65) 23 (62) 19 (35) .01c .81c
CTQ score, mean (SD) 41.0 (12.5) 44.9 (18.9) 31.9 (7.2) <.001d .65e
Follow-up
HDRS score, mean (SD) 4.3 (4.0) 12.7 (7.7) 1.2 (2.0) <.001 <.001
Time between scans, mean (SD), y 2.3 (0.2) 2.2 (0.3) 2.3 (0.3) .37 .30
Psychiatric medication index, mean (SD) 1.3 (0.9) 1.7 (1.3) NA NA .15
Proportion of days with psychiatric medication during follow-up, mean (SD) 0.9 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3) NA NA .81
Rehospitalized during follow-up, No. (%) 0 16 (43) NA NA <.001c
Depressive episodes during follow-up, mean (SD), No. 0 1.3 (0.6) NA NA NA
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; NA, not applicable.

a

Comparing patients without relapse, patients with relapse, and healthy controls.

b

Comparing patients without relapse and patients with relapse.

c

Determined by use of the χ2 test.

d

Determined by use of the Kruskal-Wallis test.

e

Determined by use of the Mann-Whitney test.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedure

The T1 images were acquired using a 3-T scanner. For a detailed description of data acquisition, see eAppendix 1 in the Supplement.

Voxel-Based Morphometry

Gray matter information was analyzed using the default longitudinal preprocessing pipeline of the Computational Anatomy Toolbox (http://www.neuro.uni-jena.de/cat, v933). Processing steps included intraparticipant realignment of baseline and follow-up images to a mean image for each participant, to evaluate within-participant dependency of images over time. Following bias correction, spatial normalization parameters were estimated based on the mean image using high-dimensional Diffeomorphic Anatomical Registration Through Exponentiated Lie Algebra (DARTEL) normalization, and applied to baseline and follow-up images. Images were segmented into gray matter, white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid. Gray matter images were smoothed with an 8-mm full-width at half maximum Gaussian kernel. For details on data quality checks, see eAppendix 1 in the Supplement.

Surface-Based Morphometry

Based on recent studies reporting cortical alterations in patients with MDD,11,24 we selected the insula, medial OFC, rostral ACC, and rostral middle frontal gyrus as regions of interest for additional analysis of cortical thickness. The rostral middle frontal gyrus includes Brodmann area 46 and was therefore chosen as a representative of the DLPFC.38 Segmentation of all regions was based on the Desikan-Killiany atlas.39 To extract thickness estimates, images were automatically processed with the longitudinal stream40 in FreeSurfer, version 5.3. See eAppendix 1 in the Supplement for further information on data quality checks.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses of VBM volumes were performed in SPM12, version 6685 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm), using an absolute threshold masking of 0.2. Surface-based morphometry (SBM) measures of cortical thickness were analyzed in SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBM Corp).

For both VBM and SBM analyses, a 3 × 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with group (no relapse, relapse, and healthy controls) as between-participant factor and time (baseline and follow-up) as within-participant factor was computed. Age and total intracranial volume (for VBM only) were included as covariates. We performed F tests for the main effects of group and the group-by-time interaction. Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons were calculated to further investigate significant effects. For VBM volumes, pairwise comparisons were computed on extracted contrast values of the significant clusters in SPSS.

Anatomical labeling of significant VBM clusters was performed by the automated anatomical labeling atlas41 implemented in the Wake Forest University pickatlas.42 We used a rigorous statistical threshold of P < .05 (2-sided), familywise error corrected on the voxel level.43 Exploratory results are also reported at a statistical threshold of P < .001, uncorrected, and a cluster threshold of k = 300 voxels.

For the patient subsamples, VBM gray matter volume differences were computed by subtracting contrast values extracted at baseline from those at follow-up. We performed correlation analyses to investigate potentially confounding effects of medication and symptom severity at follow-up on gray matter volumes and on gray matter volume differences.

Results

The study included 60 participants with MDD: 23 without relapse (13 women and 10 men; mean [SD] age, 32.5 [10.5] years) and 37 with relapse during the follow-up interval (19 women and 18 men; mean [SD] age, 37.0 [12.7] years). A total of 54 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (24 women and 30 men; mean [SD] age, 37.5 [8.7] years) were also included.

Whole-Brain Analysis (VBM)

The ANCOVA showed a significant interaction of group by time when controlling for age and total intracranial volume, which comprised clusters in the right insula and the right DLPFC (Table 3 and Figure). Exploratory analyses revealed an additional interaction in the ACC and in the middle and superior temporal gyrus (eTable 1 and eFigure in the Supplement).

Table 3. Results From Whole-Brain Analysis of Covariance on Voxel-Based Morphometry Volume.

Group-by-Time Interaction Hemisphere Brodmann Area(s) Cluster Size Coordinate P Valuea
x y z
Anatomical region
Insula Right 13 79 44 −6 −4 .01
DLPFC Right 9, 10 17 30 51 32 .01
DLPFC Right 9, 10 6 45 50 14 .03
DLPFC Right 9, 10 8 18 54 34 .03
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

a

Corrected for familywise error.

Figure. Associations of Relapse With Gray Matter Volume Over Time.

Figure.

Open in a new tab

A, Significant cluster of the group-by-time interaction in the right insular cortex (y = –3), uncorrected at P < .001, no cluster threshold. B, Mean contrast values of the right insular cortex for patients with relapse of major depressive disorder (MDD), patients without relapse of MDD, and healthy controls at both time points. C, Significant cluster of the group-by-time interaction in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (x = 30), uncorrected at P < .001, no cluster threshold. D, Mean contrast values of the right DLPFC for patients with relapse of MDD, patients without relapse of MDD, and healthy controls at both time points. Color bar indicates F values. Error bars indicate 1 SEM.

In the insula, pairwise comparisons on the extracted cluster values revealed a significant increase in volume between baseline and follow-up in healthy controls (difference, 0.060; 95% CI, 0.034-0.085; P < .001) and a significant decrease in volume between baseline and follow-up in patients with relapse (difference, −0.032; 95% CI, −0.063 to −0.002; P = .04), whereas there was no significant change in patients without relapse (difference, 0.027; 95% CI, −0.012 to 0.066; P = .17) (Table 4 and Figure). In the DLPFC, there was a significant decrease in volume between baseline and follow-up in patients with relapse (difference, −0.079; 95% CI, −0.113 to −0.045; P < .001) but no significant change in patients without relapse (difference, 0.023; 95% CI, −0.020 to 0.066; P = .30) or healthy controls (difference, 0.010; 95% CI, −0.018 to 0.038; P = .48) (Table 4 and Figure). The pattern of interaction effects remained the same if the ANCOVA was repeated considering only patient subgroups (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement). For the patient subgroups, neither symptom severity nor medication load index were significantly correlated with gray matter volume differences or gray matter volumes at follow-up (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Table 4. Mean VBM Volume and Cortical Thickness at Baseline and Follow-up.

Anatomical Region (Hemisphere) Patients With MDD Without Relapse Patients With MDD With Relapse Healthy Controls
Baseline Follow-up Mean (SD) Difference 95% CI P Value Baseline Follow-up Mean (SD) Difference 95% CI P Value Baseline Follow-up Mean (SD) Difference 95% CI P Value
VBM volume, mean (SD)
Insula (right) 0.324
(0.012)		 0.351
(0.013)		 0.027
(0.020)		 −0.012 to
0.066		 .17 0.344
(0.009)		 0.311
(0.010)		 −0.032
(0.015)		 −0.063 to
−0.002		 .04 0.294
(0.008)		 0.354
(0.009)		 0.060
(0.013)		 0.034 to
0.085		 <.001
DLPFC (right) 0.273
(0.014)		 0.296
(0.014)		 0.023
(0.022)		 −0.020 to
0.066		 .30 0.321
(0.011)		 0.242
(0.011)		 −0.079
(0.017)		 −0.113 to
−0.045		 <.001 0.282
(0.009)		 0.292
(0.009)		 0.010
(0.014)		 −0.018 to
0.038		 .48
Cortical thickness, mean (SD), mm
Insula (left) 3.002
(0.034)		 3.016
(0.036)		 0.014
(0.019)		 −0.024 to
0.052		 .46 2.993
(0.026)		 2.990
(0.028)		 −0.004
(0.015)		 −0.033 to
0.025		 .80 2.947
(0.022)		 2.982
(0.023)		 0.035
(0.012)		 0.011 to
0.059		 .005
Insula (right) 2.936
(0.036)		 2.973
(0.036)		 0.037
(0.018)		 0.002 to
0.072		 .04 2.946
(0.028)		 2.962
(0.028)		 0.016
(0.014)		 −0.011 to
0.056		 .25 2.863
(0.023)		 2.897
(0.023)		 0.034
(0.011)		 0.011 to
0.056		 .004
Medial OFC (left) 2.298
(0.032)		 2.387
(0.033)		 0.089
(0.029)		 0.032 to
0.147		 .003 2.395
(0.023)		 2.389
(0.024)		 −0.006
(0.021)		 −0.047 to
0.036		 .79 2.347
(0.019)		 2.395
(0.020)		 0.048
(0.018)		 0.013 to
0.083		 .007
Medial OFC (right) 2.335
(0.032)		 2.394
(0.033)		 0.059
(0.028)		 0.004 to
0.114		 .04 2.384
(0.025)		 2.375
(0.026)		 −0.009
(0.022)		 −0.052 to
0.034		 .67 2.344
(0.021)		 2.372
(0.022)		 0.028
(0.018)		 −0.008 to
0.064		 .12
Rostral ACC (left) 2.746
(0.041)		 2.819
(0.038)		 0.073
(0.025)		 0.023 to
0.123		 .005 2.846
(0.031)		 2.850
(0.029)		 0.003
(0.019)		 −0.035 to
0.041		 .86 2.745
(0.026)		 2.832
(0.024)		 0.087
(0.016)		 0.056 to
0.118		 <.001
Rostral ACC (right) 2.767
(0.043)		 2.798
(0.043)		 0.031
(0.032)		 −0.033 to
0.094		 .34 2.800
(0.033)		 2.816
(0.033)		 0.016
(0.025)		 −0.034 to
0.066		 .52 2.738
(0.028)		 2.772
(0.028)		 0.034
(0.021)		 −0.008 to
0.075		 .11
Rostral MFG (left) 2.517
(0.023)		 2.515
(0.020)		 −0.002
(0.019)		 −0.039 to
0.035		 .91 2.534
(0.017)		 2.492
(0.015)		 −0.042
(0.014)		 −0.070 to
−0.014		 .003 2.516
(0.014)		 2.510
(0.013)		 −0.006
(0.011)		 −0.029 to
0.017		 .60
Rostral MFG (right) 2.512
(0.025)		 2.508
(0.024)		 −0.004
(0.017)		 −0.038 to
0.029		 .80 2.502
(0.018)		 2.474
(0.018)		 −0.028
(0.013)		 −0.053 to
−0.003		 .03 2.503
(0.015)		 2.496
(0.015)		 −0.006
(0.011)		 −0.027 to
0.015		 .57
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; MDD, major depressive disorder; MFG, middle frontal gyrus; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex; VBM, voxel-based morphometry.

At baseline, patients with relapse between scans had significantly higher gray matter volume compared with patients without relapse (only in the DLPFC) and healthy controls (both in the DLPFC and insula). Details on the main effect of group and group differences at baseline and follow-up can be found in eAppendix 2 in the Supplement.

Region-of-Interest Analysis (SBM)

The ANCOVA showed a significant group-by-time interaction for cortical thickness of the left medial OFC and left rostral ACC (eTable 3 in the Supplement). For both regions, patients without relapse had a significant increase of cortical thickness (ACC: difference, 0.073 mm; 95% CI, 0.023-0.123 mm; P = .005; OFC: difference, 0.089 mm; 95% CI, 0.032-0.147 mm; P = .003), as did healthy controls (ACC: difference, 0.087 mm; 95% CI, 0.056-0.118 mm; P < .001; OFC: difference, 0.048 mm; 95% CI, 0.013-0.083 mm; P = .007), whereas there was no significant change in patients with relapse (ACC: difference, 0.003 mm; 95% CI, –0.035 to 0.041 mm; P = .86; OFC: difference, –0.006 mm; 95% CI, –0.047 to 0.036 mm; P = .79). Although the group-by-time interaction failed to reach significance for the right insula, pairwise comparisons revealed the same pattern of change. In the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, we observed a decrease of cortical thickness in patients with relapse whereas patients without relapse and controls did not show a significant change. Results from pairwise comparisons of longitudinal effects within groups are presented in Table 4.

Discussion

Distinct associations of relapse in MDD with brain morphologic features were revealed using a longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging design and a combined VBM and SBM approach. Patients who experienced at least 1 relapse between scans showed a decline of insular volume and DLPFC volume and thickness from baseline to follow-up. In patients without relapse, gray matter volume in these regions was stable, whereas cortical thickness increased in the left medial OFC, left rostral ACC, and right insula. Volume changes from baseline to follow-up were not associated with psychiatric medication or with severity of depression at follow-up. Together, these results highlight the effects of relapse on morphologic brain alterations in patients with MDD.

The observed neuroplastic changes in the insula, ACC, and prefrontal cortex are in line with neurobiological models of MDD that assume a dysfunction of the frontolimbic brain circuitry.44 Cross-sectional studies often report changes of insular volume and thickness in patients with MDD.9,10,11,45,46 Our observed effect of relapse on insular morphologic features is supported by previous studies showing an association of insular volume change over time and patients’ course of illness, such as duration of illness9,10,47 and number of depressive episodes.25 Previous studies assume that regional volume changes are associated with changes in glial cell density, neuronal size, and dendritic branching,48,49,50 which are known to influence the function of neural circuitries in these regions.51 Although, to our knowledge, the direct link between morphologic and functional alterations has not been investigated, we hypothesize that insular atrophy might contribute to a selective mood-congruent activation toward emotional stimuli52 and use of suppressive emotion regulation strategies.53

Meta-analyses frequently report gray matter alterations in the DLPFC and OFC of patients with MDD.54 Interestingly, reductions of left medial OFC thickness were most pronounced in patients with recurrent MDD.11 Thus, relapse seems to affect gray matter decline, as already indicated by a study showing less progressed decrease in subgroups with remission of MDD after 3 years19 and findings on opposing trajectories of DLPFC thickness in patients with remission vs those without remission.24 On the functional level, magnetic resonance imaging studies on the prefrontal cortex might point at a deficit in cognitive control and emotion regulation.55,56,57

The rostral ACC has been reported to be decreased in individuals with MDD, especially with multiple depressive episodes.11,12 Our results are supported by findings on less decrease of the left ACC in patients without remission compared with those with remission.19 Changes in ACC volume have been shown to be correlated with faster rates of symptom improvement,58 which fits with our observation that an increase in ACC thickness might be associated with a beneficial course of illness. Taken together, our present findings on insular, ACC, and prefrontal atrophy in patients with recurrent MDD shed light on the development of a bottom-up processing bias of emotional stimuli (eg, in limbic brain areas) and a disruption of top-down executive functions (eg, in the DLPFC or OFC and ACC).

For both the DLPFC and the insula, we found only right-lateralized effects. These findings would be consistent with theories on a right-hemispheric specialization to aversive emotion processing and regulation.59 However, complementary analyses with FreeSurfer showed left-lateralized effects in the medial OFC and rostral ACC. Thus, laterality effects could not be supported, possibly owing to differences in preprocessing and segmentation. Future studies need to directly investigate hemispheric lateralization.

Previous longitudinal studies on morphologic changes in MDD provided no information on the course of illness between scans19,20,21,22 but mainly reported associations with remission status, including current depressive symptoms at follow-up. Therefore, these studies could not disentangle the effects of remission status from differing courses of depression. The morphologic alterations observed when contrasting patients with and patients without remission might thus be better explained by differences in depressive episodes between scans and less by state differences. Regional morphologic changes of the cortex as a putative cumulative effect of illness duration and relapse are supported by studies that elucidate progressive neural changes in association with recurrent episodes.60,61,62,63 We can only partly replicate previous findings on a gray matter volume increase in patients with remission23,24 because there was only a tendency for an increase of cortical thickness in patients without relapse. Future studies should clarify whether there is a normalization of volume in patients without relapse, or whether an increase could be better explained by confounding variables exerting neuroprotective effects (eg, medication or psychotherapy).

In our study, we observed larger baseline DLPFC volumes in patients with relapse than in patients without relapse, although patient groups did not differ in important confounding variables at baseline (eg, medication, depression severity, childhood maltreatment, and familial risk). Volume differences in the DLPFC could be explained by other variables that have not been assessed in this study. For example, environmental factors other than childhood maltreatment, such as urbanicity, could be associated with reduced volume and cortical thickness in the DLPFC.64,65 Furthermore, unknown genetic factors contributing to both susceptibility for relapse and brain structure could be responsible for this finding. Alternatively, a larger DLPFC volume could be a correlate of increased disease vulnerability or could reflect a compensatory mechanism in individuals who are prone to relapse. Furthermore, our study might be underpowered to detect reliable cross-sectional associations owing to the small sample size. However, longitudinal studies require far fewer participants than do cross-sectional studies to detect small morphologic changes in the brain.66

We found an increase of insular volume and thickness in controls. Research on normal brain changes across the lifetime in control populations describes a trend of decrease in volume after the age of 30 years.67,68,69,70 However, an age-related decrease in volume has been derived mostly from cross-sectional studies, which could be confounded by cohort effects (eg, secular changes in nutrition, medical care, or lifestyle).71 Furthermore, high and constant reliability of neuroimaging measures was demonstrated, both in our study (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement) and in other samples.72 Finally, findings were independent of the applied method, and there were no changes to the scanner setting that could have confounded our findings.

Surface-based morphometry and VBM partly revealed different results for the direction of morphologic trajectories. Because VBM incorporates information from multiple morphologic characteristics, such as cortical thickness, folding, gyrification, and volume, this might explain the inconsistencies in the results. Previous studies that used a multimethods approach showed a regionally dependent contribution of different surface properties to the VBM signal.73 Furthermore, comparability between methods is limited owing to differences in delineation of anatomical regions and use of different atlases for labeling. Despite these methodological differences, significant associations between VBM and SBM measures could be reported in previous studies,74,75 which indicates concordance of methods.

Strengths and Limitations

Our study has several strengths and methodological weaknesses. To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study that directly addressed the association of relapse with morphologic brain alterations in middle-aged patients with MDD. Owing to adaptive neural processes in MDD, it seems of great importance to assess the course of depression for a given time interval, rather than the remission status at a single time point.

Furthermore, we used a multimethodological approach with SBM and VBM. Both methods are optimized for longitudinal designs, instead of nonblinded manual segmentation. Manual methods are subject to errors in both accuracy and reproducibility (eg, through subjectivity in structure interpretation).76

We implemented control for important confounding variables (eg, age, depressive episodes, medication, severity of depression, childhood maltreatment, and familial risk). However, there might be other confounding variables (eg, psychotherapy, social support, urbanicity, and duration of depressive episodes) that should be addressed by future studies. Finally, our study is limited by the retrospective assessment of the course of illness during the follow-up interval based on patients’ self-disclosure, because self-reported clinical measures often have low accuracy owing to recollection biases in MDD.77

Conclusions

Our study revealed distinct effects of relapse in patients with MDD using a longitudinal design and a multimethodological approach. Observed cortical changes from baseline to follow-up affected brain structures that are crucial for regulation of emotions and thus need to be prevented. Our results illustrate the negative association of relapse with morphologic brain alterations and might be a step to guide future prognosis and maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent MDD.

Supplement.

eAppendix 1. Methods

eAppendix 2. Results

eTable 1. Results From Exploratory Whole Brain Group by Time Interaction

eTable 2. Correlations of Gray Matter Differences (GMD) and Gray Matter Volumes With Symptom Severity and Medication Load Index at Baseline and at Follow-up

eTable 3. Results From 3x2 ANCOVA for Cortical Thickness

eFigure. Effects of Relapse on Gray Matter Volume Over Time on Whole Brain Level

Click here for additional data file. (130.6KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Kanai T, Takeuchi H, Furukawa TA, et al. . Time to recurrence after recovery from major depressive episodes and its predictors. Psychol Med. 2003;33(5):839-845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Keller MB, Boland RJ. Implications of failing to achieve successful long-term maintenance treatment of recurrent unipolar major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;44(5):348-360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ferrari AJ, Charlson FJ, Norman RE, et al. . Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS Med. 2013;10(11):e1001547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Campbell S, Marriott M, Nahmias C, MacQueen GM. Lower hippocampal volume in patients suffering from depression: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(4):598-607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.MacQueen G, Frodl T. The hippocampus in major depression: evidence for the convergence of the bench and bedside in psychiatric research? Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16(3):252-264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schmaal L, Veltman DJ, van Erp TGM, et al. . Subcortical brain alterations in major depressive disorder: findings from the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder working group. Mol Psychiatry. 2016;21(6):806-812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhao Y-J, Du M-Y, Huang X-Q, et al. . Brain grey matter abnormalities in medication-free patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2014;44(14):2927-2937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stratmann M, Konrad C, Kugel H, et al. . Insular and hippocampal gray matter volume reductions in patients with major depressive disorder. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lai C-H, Wu Y-T. Frontal-insula gray matter deficits in first-episode medication-naïve patients with major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2014;160:74-79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lee H-Y, Tae WS, Yoon H-K, et al. . Demonstration of decreased gray matter concentration in the midbrain encompassing the dorsal raphe nucleus and the limbic subcortical regions in major depressive disorder: an optimized voxel-based morphometry study. J Affect Disord. 2011;133(1-2):128-136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schmaal L, Hibar DP, Sämann PG, et al. . Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22(6):900-909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bora E, Fornito A, Pantelis C, Yücel M. Gray matter abnormalities in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of voxel based morphometry studies. J Affect Disord. 2012;138(1-2):9-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Du M-Y, Wu Q-Z, Yue Q, et al. . Voxelwise meta-analysis of gray matter reduction in major depressive disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2012;36(1):11-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lai C-H. Gray matter volume in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies. Psychiatry Res. 2013;211(1):37-46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Videbech P, Ravnkilde B. Hippocampal volume and depression: a meta-analysis of MRI studies. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(11):1957-1966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sheline YI, Sanghavi M, Mintun MA, Gado MH. Depression duration but not age predicts hippocampal volume loss in medically healthy women with recurrent major depression. J Neurosci. 1999;19(12):5034-5043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.MacMaster FP, Kusumakar V. Hippocampal volume in early onset depression. BMC Med. 2004;2(2):2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.McKinnon MC, Yucel K, Nazarov A, MacQueen GM. A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009;34(1):41-54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Frodl TS, Koutsouleris N, Bottlender R, et al. . Depression-related variation in brain morphology over 3 years: effects of stress? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(10):1156-1165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Isıklı S, Ugurlu O, Durmusoglu E, et al. . Altered hippocampal formation shape in first-episode depressed patients at 5-year follow-up. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(1):50-55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Taylor WD, Steffens DC, MacFall JRJJR, et al. . White matter hyperintensity progression and late-life depression outcomes. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(11):1090-1096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Taylor WD, McQuoid DR, Payne ME, Zannas AS, MacFall JRJJR, Steffens DC. Hippocampus atrophy and the longitudinal course of late-life depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014;22(12):1504-1512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hou Z, Yuan Y, Zhang Z, Bai F, Hou G, You J. Longitudinal changes in hippocampal volumes and cognition in remitted geriatric depressive disorder. Behav Brain Res. 2012;227(1):30-35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Phillips JL, Batten LA, Tremblay P, Aldosary F, Blier P. A prospective, longitudinal study of the effect of remission on cortical thickness and hippocampal volume in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;18(8):1-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Soriano-Mas C, Hernández-Ribas R, Pujol J, et al. . Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment of structural brain alterations in melancholic depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(4):318-325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lavretsky H, Lesser IM, Wohl M, Miller BL, Mehringer CM. Clinical and neuroradiologic features associated with chronicity in late-life depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999;7(4):309-316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sachs-Ericsson N, Corsentino E, Moxley J, et al. . A longitudinal study of differences in late- and early-onset geriatric depression: depressive symptoms and psychosocial, cognitive, and neurological functioning. Aging Ment Health. 2013;17(1):1-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Steffens DC, McQuoid DR, Payne ME, Potter GG. Change in hippocampal volume on magnetic resonance imaging and cognitive decline among older depressed and nondepressed subjects in the Neurocognitive Outcomes of Depression in the Elderly Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;19(1):4-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Weber K, Giannakopoulos P, Delaloye C, et al. . Personality traits, cognition and volumetric MRI changes in elderly patients with early-onset depression: a 2-year follow-up study. Psychiatry Res. 2012;198(1):47-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zannas AS, McQuoid DR, Payne ME, et al. . Negative life stress and longitudinal hippocampal volume changes in older adults with and without depression. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(6):829-834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dohm K, Redlich R, Zwitserlood P, Dannlowski U. Trajectories of major depression disorders: a systematic review of longitudinal neuroimaging findings. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2017;51(5):441-454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wittchen H-U, Wunderlich U, Gruschwitz S, Zaudig M. SKID-I: Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56-62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, et al. . Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(8):1132-1136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dannlowski U, Stuhrmann A, Beutelmann V, et al. . Limbic scars: long-term consequences of childhood maltreatment revealed by functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71(4):286-293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Opel N, Zwanzger P, Redlich R, et al. . Differing brain structural correlates of familial and environmental risk for major depressive disorder revealed by a combined VBM/pattern recognition approach. Psychol Med. 2016;46(2):277-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Amico F, Meisenzahl E, Koutsouleris N, Reiser M, Möller H-J, Frodl T. Structural MRI correlates for vulnerability and resilience to major depressive disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2011;36(1):15-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rajkowska G, Goldman-Rakic PS. Cytoarchitectonic definition of prefrontal areas in the normal human cortex, II: variability in locations of areas 9 and 46 and relationship to the Talairach coordinate system. Cereb Cortex. 1995;5(4):323-337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Desikan RS, Ségonne F, Fischl B, et al. . An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):968-980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Reuter M, Schmansky NJ, Rosas HD, Fischl B. Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage. 2012;61(4):1402-1418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Landeau B, Papathanassiou D, et al. . Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage. 2002;15(1):273-289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH. An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. Neuroimage. 2003;19(3):1233-1239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Flandin G, Friston KJ. Analysis of family-wise error rates in statistical parametric mapping using random field theory. [published online November 1, 2017]. Hum Brain Mapp. 2017. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mayberg HS, Liotti M, Brannan SK, et al. . Reciprocal limbic-cortical function and negative mood: converging PET findings in depression and normal sadness. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(5):675-682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Takahashi T, Yücel M, Lorenzetti V, et al. . Volumetric MRI study of the insular cortex in individuals with current and past major depression. J Affect Disord. 2010;121(3):231-238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kong L, Wu F, Tang Y, et al. . Frontal-subcortical volumetric deficits in single episode, medication-naïve depressed patients and the effects of 8 weeks fluoxetine treatment: a VBM-DARTEL study. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e79055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Serra-Blasco M, Portella MJ, Gómez-Ansón B, et al. . Effects of illness duration and treatment resistance on grey matter abnormalities in major depression. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202(6):434-440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rajkowska G. Postmortem studies in mood disorders indicate altered numbers of neurons and glial cells. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;48(8):766-777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rajkowska G, Miguel-Hidalgo JJ, Wei J, et al. . Morphometric evidence for neuronal and glial prefrontal cell pathology in major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;45(9):1085-1098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Anderson BJ. Plasticity of gray matter volume: the cellular and synaptic plasticity that underlies volumetric change. Dev Psychobiol. 2011;53(5):456-465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cotter D, Mackay D, Landau S, Kerwin R, Everall I. Reduced glial cell density and neuronal size in the anterior cingulate cortex in major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(6):545-553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Stuhrmann A, Suslow T, Dannlowski U. Facial emotion processing in major depression: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Biol Mood Anxiety Disord. 2011;1(1):10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Giuliani NR, Drabant EM, Bhatnagar R, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation and brain plasticity: expressive suppression use predicts anterior insula volume. Neuroimage. 2011;58(1):10-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Koolschijn PC, van Haren NE, Lensvelt-Mulders GJ, Hulshoff Pol HE, Kahn RS. Brain volume abnormalities in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(11):3719-3735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lévesque J, Eugène F, Joanette Y, et al. . Neural circuitry underlying voluntary suppression of sadness. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(6):502-510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Koenigs M, Grafman J. The functional neuroanatomy of depression: distinct roles for ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Behav Brain Res. 2009;201(2):239-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li C-T, Lin C-P, Chou K-H, et al. . Structural and cognitive deficits in remitting and non-remitting recurrent depression: a voxel-based morphometric study. Neuroimage. 2010;50(1):347-356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Chen C-H, Ridler K, Suckling J, et al. . Brain imaging correlates of depressive symptom severity and predictors of symptom improvement after antidepressant treatment. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(5):407-414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Heller W, Nitschke JB, Miller GA. Lateralization in emotion and emotional disorders. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1998;7(1):26-32. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep11521823 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Yang K, Xie G-R, Hu Y-Q, Mao F-Q, Su L-Y. The effects of gender and numbers of depressive episodes on serum S100B levels in patients with major depression. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2008;115(12):1687-1694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ford DE, Erlinger TP. Depression and C-reactive protein in US adults: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(9):1010-1014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Celik C, Erdem M, Cayci T, et al. . The association between serum levels of neopterin and number of depressive episodes of major depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2010;34(2):372-375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sapolsky RM. The possibility of neurotoxicity in the hippocampus in major depression: a primer on neuron death. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;48(8):755-765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Besteher B, Gaser C, Spalthoff R, Nenadić I. Associations between urban upbringing and cortical thickness and gyrification. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;95:114-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Haddad L, Schäfer A, Streit F, et al. . Brain structure correlates of urban upbringing, an environmental risk factor for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2015;41(1):115-122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Steen RG, Hamer RM, Lieberman JA. Measuring brain volume by MR imaging: impact of measurement precision and natural variation on sample size requirements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(6):1119-1125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Goodro M, Sameti M, Patenaude B, Fein G. Age effect on subcortical structures in healthy adults. Psychiatry Res. 2012;203(1):38-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wierenga L, Langen M, Ambrosino S, van Dijk S, Oranje B, Durston S. Typical development of basal ganglia, hippocampus, amygdala and cerebellum from age 7 to 24. Neuroimage. 2014;96:67-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Walhovd KB, Westlye LT, Amlien I, et al. . Consistent neuroanatomical age-related volume differences across multiple samples. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32(5):916-932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal estimates of age-related changes in the adult brain: overlaps and discrepancies. Neurobiol Aging. 2015;36(9):2563-2567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Resnick SM, Pham DL, Kraut MA, Zonderman AB, Davatzikos C. Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies of older adults: a shrinking brain. J Neurosci. 2003;23(8):3295-3301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Eggert LD, Sommer J, Jansen A, Kircher T, Konrad C. Accuracy and reliability of automated gray matter segmentation pathways on real and simulated structural magnetic resonance images of the human brain. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Palaniyappan L, Liddle PF. Differential effects of surface area, gyrification and cortical thickness on voxel based morphometric deficits in schizophrenia. Neuroimage. 2012;60(1):693-699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Grimm O, Pohlack S, Cacciaglia R, et al. . Amygdalar and hippocampal volume: a comparison between manual segmentation, Freesurfer and VBM. J Neurosci Methods. 2015;253:254-261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Bergouignan L, Chupin M, Czechowska Y, et al. . Can voxel based morphometry, manual segmentation and automated segmentation equally detect hippocampal volume differences in acute depression? Neuroimage. 2009;45(1):29-37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Collins DL, Holmes CJ, Peters TM, Evans AC. Automatic 3-D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation. Hum Brain Mapp. 1995;3(3):190-208. doi: 10.1002/hbm.460030304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Barsky AJ. Forgetting, fabricating, and telescoping: the instability of the medical history. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(9):981-984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eAppendix 1. Methods

eAppendix 2. Results

eTable 1. Results From Exploratory Whole Brain Group by Time Interaction

eTable 2. Correlations of Gray Matter Differences (GMD) and Gray Matter Volumes With Symptom Severity and Medication Load Index at Baseline and at Follow-up

eTable 3. Results From 3x2 ANCOVA for Cortical Thickness

eFigure. Effects of Relapse on Gray Matter Volume Over Time on Whole Brain Level

Click here for additional data file. (130.6KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES