Brain stimulation · 2026
Vital-affective symptom connectivity during electroconvulsive therapy distinguishes depression remission outcomes: A cross-lagged panel network study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zandstra Melissa G, Lunansky Gabriela, Scheepers Floortje E, Blanken Tessa F, Birkenhager Tom K, Bloemkolk Dieneke, Broekman Birit F P, van Eijndhoven Philip, van Exel Eric, Gerritse Frank L, Hegeman Johanna M, Heijnen Willemijn, Kok Rob M, Loef Dore, Mocking Roel J T, Nuninga Jasper O, Oudega Mardien L, Rhebergen Didi, Ruhe Henricus G, Rutten Bart P F, Schut Bart, Sommer Iris E, Tendolkar Indira, Turner Rosanne J, Verwijk Esmée, van Welie Hanneke, Woerdman Noor, Dols Annemiek, van Dellen Edwin, Somers Metten
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is effective for depression, but symptom dynamics during treatment remain unclear. Network approaches may clarify symptom relations and identify patterns linked to remission.
OBJECTIVE: Examining symptom dynamics during ECT using temporal network modeling and comparing baseline and temporal symptom networks between remitters and non-remitters.
METHODS: Using the Dutch ECT Consortium (N = 857, unipolar/bipolar depression), we examined seven harmonized symptoms from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) over the first five weeks of treatment. We estimated baseline networks using partial correlations and temporal networks using Cross-Lagged Panel Network analysis, which quantified each symptom's in-prediction and out-prediction. Between remitters (N = 413) and non-remitters (N = 379), baseline networks were compared using the Network Comparison Test, while temporal networks were compared via network density, Jaccard overlap, and edge correlations.
RESULTS: In the full sample (65.2% female, mean age 61.3 ± 15.5 years), suicidal thoughts exerted the strongest influence on other symptoms (i.e., highest out-prediction). Baseline networks did not differ by outcome, but temporal networks did: remitters showed greater density than non-remitters (χ2 = 8.20, p < 0.01), with low overlap in edges (Jaccard = 0.25), and non-significant edge-weight correlations (r = 0.16; p = 0.46) between groups. Remitters displayed integrated affective-vital symptom connections, while non-remitters showed fragmented subnetworks.
CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in suicidal thoughts preceded broader symptom improvements, suggesting this symptom warrants monitoring. Remitters showed coordinated symptom reduction where affective and vital symptoms reinforced each other, while non-remitters showed independent reduction. These findings provide insights into symptom dynamics during ECT.
OBJECTIVE: Examining symptom dynamics during ECT using temporal network modeling and comparing baseline and temporal symptom networks between remitters and non-remitters.
METHODS: Using the Dutch ECT Consortium (N = 857, unipolar/bipolar depression), we examined seven harmonized symptoms from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) over the first five weeks of treatment. We estimated baseline networks using partial correlations and temporal networks using Cross-Lagged Panel Network analysis, which quantified each symptom's in-prediction and out-prediction. Between remitters (N = 413) and non-remitters (N = 379), baseline networks were compared using the Network Comparison Test, while temporal networks were compared via network density, Jaccard overlap, and edge correlations.
RESULTS: In the full sample (65.2% female, mean age 61.3 ± 15.5 years), suicidal thoughts exerted the strongest influence on other symptoms (i.e., highest out-prediction). Baseline networks did not differ by outcome, but temporal networks did: remitters showed greater density than non-remitters (χ2 = 8.20, p < 0.01), with low overlap in edges (Jaccard = 0.25), and non-significant edge-weight correlations (r = 0.16; p = 0.46) between groups. Remitters displayed integrated affective-vital symptom connections, while non-remitters showed fragmented subnetworks.
CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in suicidal thoughts preceded broader symptom improvements, suggesting this symptom warrants monitoring. Remitters showed coordinated symptom reduction where affective and vital symptoms reinforced each other, while non-remitters showed independent reduction. These findings provide insights into symptom dynamics during ECT.