Journal of psychiatric research · 2023
Transdiagnostic behavioral and genetic contributors to repetitive negative thinking: A machine learning approach.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Forthman Katherine L, Kuplicki Rayus, Yeh Hung-Wen, Khalsa Sahib S, Paulus Martin P, Guinjoan Salvador M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is a symptom that can negatively impact the treatment and course of common psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety. We aimed to characterize behavioral and genetic correlates of RNT to infer potential contributors to its genesis and maintenance.
METHODS: We applied a machine learning (ML) ensemble method to define the contribution of fear, interoceptive, reward, and cognitive variables to RNT, along with polygenic risk scores (PRS) for neuroticism, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), worry, insomnia, and headaches. We used the PRS and 20 principal components of the behavioral and cognitive variables to predict intensity of RNT. We employed the Tulsa-1000 study, a large database of deeply phenotyped individuals recruited between 2015 and 2018.
RESULTS: PRS for neuroticism was the main predictor of RNT intensity (R2=0.027,p<0.001). Behavioral variables indicative of faulty fear learning and processing, as well as aberrant interoceptive aversiveness, were significant contributors to RNT severity. Unexpectedly, we observed no contribution of reward behavior and diverse cognitive function variables.
LIMITATIONS: This study is an exploratory approach that must be validated with a second, independent cohort. Furthermore, this is an association study, limiting causal inference.
CONCLUSIONS: RNT is highly determined by genetic risk for neuroticism, a behavioral construct that confers risk to a variety of internalizing disorders, and by emotional processing and learning features, including interoceptive aversiveness. These results suggest that targeting emotional and interoceptive processing areas, which involve central autonomic network structures, could be useful in the modulation of RNT intensity.
METHODS: We applied a machine learning (ML) ensemble method to define the contribution of fear, interoceptive, reward, and cognitive variables to RNT, along with polygenic risk scores (PRS) for neuroticism, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), worry, insomnia, and headaches. We used the PRS and 20 principal components of the behavioral and cognitive variables to predict intensity of RNT. We employed the Tulsa-1000 study, a large database of deeply phenotyped individuals recruited between 2015 and 2018.
RESULTS: PRS for neuroticism was the main predictor of RNT intensity (R2=0.027,p<0.001). Behavioral variables indicative of faulty fear learning and processing, as well as aberrant interoceptive aversiveness, were significant contributors to RNT severity. Unexpectedly, we observed no contribution of reward behavior and diverse cognitive function variables.
LIMITATIONS: This study is an exploratory approach that must be validated with a second, independent cohort. Furthermore, this is an association study, limiting causal inference.
CONCLUSIONS: RNT is highly determined by genetic risk for neuroticism, a behavioral construct that confers risk to a variety of internalizing disorders, and by emotional processing and learning features, including interoceptive aversiveness. These results suggest that targeting emotional and interoceptive processing areas, which involve central autonomic network structures, could be useful in the modulation of RNT intensity.