|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: In major depressive disorder (MDD), self-blame-related fMRI measures have shown the potential to be used as prognostic markers for recurrence risk. Like most potential fMRI markers, however, their reliability is unclear. Here, we probed the internal reliability of self-blame-related fMRI measures, as well as the impact of different modelling approaches on reliability metrics and validity.
METHODS: Internal consistency (i.e. split-half reliability) was calculated for blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses and psychophysiological interactions (PPI) related to self-blame-related biases in medication-free remitted MDD participants (n = 81) and healthy controls (n = 41). Trial-length was modelled using three durations (0, 2 and 5 s), which was convolved with the haemodynamic response function (HRF) with and without time and dispersion derivatives. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for simple contrasts examining activation to self-blaming emotions and other-blaming emotions and the more complex contrast of the subtraction-based difference between self- and other-blaming emotions within the following a priori ROIs: right superior anterior temporal lobe seed region, anterior subgenual cingulate cortex, posterior subgenual cortex and right striatum / pallidum.
RESULTS: Across ROIs, we obtained fair reliability (ICC ≥ 0.40) for simple, but poor reliability (ICC < 0.40) for more complex fMRI measures related to self-blame. Despite this low internal consistency of complex measures at the individual level, we observed robust activation at the group-level, reproducing previously published results.
CONCLUSIONS: While simple BOLD contrasts had fair reliability, previously employed PPI models had poor reliability and simple connectivity measures lacked predictive validity. This calls for the development of functional connectivity measures that strike a better balance between reliability and validity for future clinical applications, which require robust measures at the individual rather than group-level.
Language: en |