TABLE 2.
Treatment effects on the potential mediators (Path A)1
| Unadjusted mean (SD) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention3 | Usual care | Intervention difference4 | ||||||
| Circuit and neural target | Hemi2 | Baseline | Δ 2 mo | Baseline | Δ 2 mo | Mean [95% CI] | P | FDR Padj |
| Threat (nonconscious)5 | ||||||||
| Amygdala | L | 0.30 (0.96) | −0.32 (1.25) | 0.09 (1.00) | 0.43 (1.69) | −0.75 [−1.49, −0.01]* | 0.049* | 0.10* |
| R | 0.26 (0.75) | −0.07 (1.38) | 0.01 (0.84) | 0.56 (1.25) | −0.63 [−1.30, 0.05]* | 0.07* | 0.10* | |
| sgACC | M | 0.24 (1.08) | 0.22 (1.18) | −0.11 (0.99) | 0.46 (1.30) | −0.24 [−0.87, 0.39] | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| sgACC to amygdala | M–L | −0.37 (0.80) | 0.36 (1.25) | 0.20 (0.94) | −0.22 (1.21) | 0.58 [−0.05, 1.20] | 0.07 | 0.27 |
| M–R | −0.23 (0.83) | 0.37 (1.17) | 0.25 (0.90) | −0.13 (1.27) | 0.49 [−0.12, 1.11] | 0.12 | 0.31 | |
| Circuit6 | — | 0.18 (0.44) | −0.26 (0.65) | −0.05 (0.56) | 0.18 (0.82) | −0.43 [−0.81, −0.06]* | 0.02* | 0.18* |
| Sad (conscious)7 | ||||||||
| Amygdala | L | −0.20 (0.91) | 0.05 (1.22) | −0.29 (0.90) | 0.27 (1.36) | −0.22 [−0.87, 0.43] | 0.50 | 0.78 |
| R | −0.03 (0.70) | 0.01 (0.99) | −0.10 (0.83) | 0.30 (1.17) | −0.29 [−0.84, 0.25] | 0.29 | 0.78 | |
| Anterior insula | L | 0.02 (0.67) | −0.18 (0.98) | 0.04 (0.63) | −0.09 (1.27) | −0.09 [−0.66, 0.48] | 0.76 | 0.78 |
| R | 0.00 (0.73) | 0.02 (0.95) | −0.01 (0.74) | −0.06 (1.34) | 0.08 [−0.50, 0.66] | 0.78 | 0.78 | |
| pgACC | M | −0.11 (0.85) | −0.36 (1.13) | −0.20 (0.94) | −0.10 (1.29) | −0.26 [−0.87, 0.36] | 0.41 | 0.78 |
| pgACC to amygdala | M–L | −0.12 (0.96) | 0.38 (1.49) | −0.23 (0.86) | 0.23 (1.33) | 0.15 [−0.58, 0.87] | 0.69 | 0.79 |
| M–R | 0.05 (0.91) | 0.15 (1.40) | −0.07 (0.81) | −0.06 (1.21) | 0.21 [−0.47, 0.88] | 0.54 | 0.72 | |
| pgACC to anterior insula | M–L | −0.10 (0.68) | −0.01 (1.16) | −0.35 (0.82) | 0.21 (1.08) | −0.22 [−0.80, 0.35] | 0.44 | 0.72 |
| M–R | −0.20 (0.78) | 0.02 (1.29) | −0.53 (0.81) | 0.23 (0.97) | −0.22 [−0.81, 0.38] | 0.47 | 0.72 | |
| Circuit6 | — | −0.01 (0.31) | 0.01 (0.53) | 0.00 (0.30) | 0.00 (0.53) | 0.01 [−0.27, 0.27] | 0.97 | 0.97 |
Path A was assessed using the t test to obtain mean differences and 95% CIs. *Results reported in the manuscript text. FDR, false discovery rate; Hemi, hemisphere; I-CARE, Integrated Coaching for Better Mood and Weight; L, left; M, medial; P, P value at an uncorrected threshold of 0.05 prior to adjustment for FDR; Padj., P value adjusted for FDR within neural target family (see Supplemental Table 2); pgACC, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex; R, right; sgACC, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex.
Single letter indicates task activation; paired letters indicate task-related connectivity.
Represents the initial 2-mo intervention phase of the I-CARE program that implemented a 7-step problem-solving process as its core component.
Due to the nature of this mechanistic pilot study, we focused on standardized mean estimates with 95% CIs and presented P values unadjusted and adjusted (Padj) using the FDR procedure to control the family error rates across tests of similar hypotheses.
Analyses on threat circuit were conducted with ntotal = 88 participants (nintervention = 47 and nusual care = 41) at baseline, and with ntotal = 63 participants (nintervention = 35 and nusual care = 28) with baseline and 2-mo follow-up.
Global circuit dysfunction score, composite of primary and secondary neural targets (41).
Analyses on sad circuit were conducted with ntotal = 89 participants (nintervention = 50 and nusual care = 39) at baseline, and with ntotal = 63 participants (nintervention = 36 and nusual care = 27) with baseline and 2-month follow-up.