情感偏差预测在脑深部刺激治疗期间抑郁的变化。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-03-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1539857
Brian Cui, Madaline M Mocchi, Brian A Metzger, Prathik Kalva, John F Magnotti, Jess G Fiedorowicz, Allison Waters, Christopher K Kovach, Yvonne Y Reed, Raissa K Mathura, Camille Steger, Bailey Pascuzzi, Kourtney Kanja, Ashan Veerakumar, Vineet Tiruvadi, Andrea Crowell, Lydia Denison, Christopher J Rozell, Nader Pouratian, Wayne Goodman, Patricio Riva Posse, Helen S Mayberg, Kelly Rowe Bijanki
{"title":"情感偏差预测在脑深部刺激治疗期间抑郁的变化。","authors":"Brian Cui, Madaline M Mocchi, Brian A Metzger, Prathik Kalva, John F Magnotti, Jess G Fiedorowicz, Allison Waters, Christopher K Kovach, Yvonne Y Reed, Raissa K Mathura, Camille Steger, Bailey Pascuzzi, Kourtney Kanja, Ashan Veerakumar, Vineet Tiruvadi, Andrea Crowell, Lydia Denison, Christopher J Rozell, Nader Pouratian, Wayne Goodman, Patricio Riva Posse, Helen S Mayberg, Kelly Rowe Bijanki","doi":"10.3389/fnhum.2025.1539857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising treatment for refractory depression, utilizing surgically implanted electrodes to stimulate specific anatomical targets within the brain. However, limitations of patient-reported and clinician-administered mood assessments pose obstacles in evaluating DBS treatment efficacy. In this study, we investigated whether an affective bias task, which leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, could serve as a reliable measure of mood changes during DBS therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two cohorts of patients (<i>n</i> = 8, <i>n</i> = 2) undergoing DBS for treatment-resistant depression at different academic medical centers completed an affective bias task at multiple time points before and after DBS implantation. The affective bias task involved rating the emotional content of a series of static photographic stimuli of facial expressions throughout their DBS treatment. Patients' ratings were compared with those of non-depressed controls to calculate affective bias scores. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess changes in bias scores over time and their relationship with depression severity measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed significant improvements in total affective bias scores over the course of DBS treatment in both cohorts. Pre-DBS, patients exhibited a negative affective bias, which was nearly eliminated post-DBS, with total bias scores approaching those of non-depressed controls. Positive valence trials showed significant improvement post-DBS, while negative valence trials showed no notable change. A control analysis indicated that stimulation status did not significantly affect bias scores, and thus stimulation status was excluded from further modeling. Linear mixed-effects modeling revealed that more negative bias scores were associated with higher HDRS-17 scores, particularly for positive valence stimuli. Additionally, greater time elapsed since DBS implantation was associated with a decrease in HDRS-17 scores, indicating clinical improvement over time.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that the affective bias task leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, providing a standardized measure of how these biases change over time. Unlike traditional mood assessments, which rely on subjective introspection, the affective bias task consistently measures changes in mood, offering potential as a tool to monitor mood changes and evaluate the candidacy of DBS treatment in refractory depression.</p>","PeriodicalId":12536,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience","volume":"19 ","pages":"1539857"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11977254/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affective bias predicts changes in depression during deep brain stimulation therapy.\",\"authors\":\"Brian Cui, Madaline M Mocchi, Brian A Metzger, Prathik Kalva, John F Magnotti, Jess G Fiedorowicz, Allison Waters, Christopher K Kovach, Yvonne Y Reed, Raissa K Mathura, Camille Steger, Bailey Pascuzzi, Kourtney Kanja, Ashan Veerakumar, Vineet Tiruvadi, Andrea Crowell, Lydia Denison, Christopher J Rozell, Nader Pouratian, Wayne Goodman, Patricio Riva Posse, Helen S Mayberg, Kelly Rowe Bijanki\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnhum.2025.1539857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising treatment for refractory depression, utilizing surgically implanted electrodes to stimulate specific anatomical targets within the brain. However, limitations of patient-reported and clinician-administered mood assessments pose obstacles in evaluating DBS treatment efficacy. In this study, we investigated whether an affective bias task, which leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, could serve as a reliable measure of mood changes during DBS therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two cohorts of patients (<i>n</i> = 8, <i>n</i> = 2) undergoing DBS for treatment-resistant depression at different academic medical centers completed an affective bias task at multiple time points before and after DBS implantation. The affective bias task involved rating the emotional content of a series of static photographic stimuli of facial expressions throughout their DBS treatment. Patients' ratings were compared with those of non-depressed controls to calculate affective bias scores. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess changes in bias scores over time and their relationship with depression severity measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed significant improvements in total affective bias scores over the course of DBS treatment in both cohorts. Pre-DBS, patients exhibited a negative affective bias, which was nearly eliminated post-DBS, with total bias scores approaching those of non-depressed controls. Positive valence trials showed significant improvement post-DBS, while negative valence trials showed no notable change. A control analysis indicated that stimulation status did not significantly affect bias scores, and thus stimulation status was excluded from further modeling. Linear mixed-effects modeling revealed that more negative bias scores were associated with higher HDRS-17 scores, particularly for positive valence stimuli. Additionally, greater time elapsed since DBS implantation was associated with a decrease in HDRS-17 scores, indicating clinical improvement over time.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that the affective bias task leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, providing a standardized measure of how these biases change over time. Unlike traditional mood assessments, which rely on subjective introspection, the affective bias task consistently measures changes in mood, offering potential as a tool to monitor mood changes and evaluate the candidacy of DBS treatment in refractory depression.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"1539857\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11977254/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1539857\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1539857","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脑深部刺激(DBS)是一种很有前途的治疗顽固性抑郁症的方法,利用手术植入的电极刺激大脑内特定的解剖目标。然而,患者报告和临床管理的情绪评估的局限性给DBS治疗效果的评估带来了障碍。在这项研究中,我们调查了情感偏倚任务,利用抑郁症患者固有的负面解释偏倚,是否可以作为治疗难治性抑郁症患者DBS治疗期间情绪变化的可靠测量。方法:两组在不同学术医疗中心接受DBS治疗难治性抑郁症的患者(n = 8, n = 2)在DBS植入前后的多个时间点完成情感偏倚任务。情感偏见任务包括在DBS治疗过程中对面部表情的一系列静态照片刺激的情感内容进行评级。将患者的评分与非抑郁对照进行比较,以计算情感偏差评分。采用线性混合效应模型来评估偏差评分随时间的变化及其与汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HDRS-17)测量的抑郁严重程度的关系。结果:我们观察到在两个队列中,在DBS治疗过程中,总情感偏倚评分显著改善。dbs前,患者表现出负性情感偏倚,dbs后几乎消除了负性情感偏倚,总偏倚得分接近非抑郁对照组。dbs后,正效价试验表现出明显的改善,而负效价试验无明显变化。对照分析表明,刺激状态对偏倚评分没有显著影响,因此在进一步建模中排除了刺激状态。线性混合效应模型显示,负偏倚得分越高,HDRS-17得分越高,特别是对于正效刺激。此外,植入DBS后经过的时间越长,HDRS-17评分就越低,这表明随着时间的推移,临床状况有所改善。讨论:我们的研究结果表明,情感偏见任务利用了抑郁症患者固有的负面解释偏见,为这些偏见如何随时间变化提供了标准化的衡量标准。与传统的依赖于主观内省的情绪评估不同,情感偏差任务始终如一地测量情绪变化,为监测情绪变化和评估DBS治疗难治性抑郁症的候选性提供了潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Affective bias predicts changes in depression during deep brain stimulation therapy.

Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising treatment for refractory depression, utilizing surgically implanted electrodes to stimulate specific anatomical targets within the brain. However, limitations of patient-reported and clinician-administered mood assessments pose obstacles in evaluating DBS treatment efficacy. In this study, we investigated whether an affective bias task, which leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, could serve as a reliable measure of mood changes during DBS therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Methods: Two cohorts of patients (n = 8, n = 2) undergoing DBS for treatment-resistant depression at different academic medical centers completed an affective bias task at multiple time points before and after DBS implantation. The affective bias task involved rating the emotional content of a series of static photographic stimuli of facial expressions throughout their DBS treatment. Patients' ratings were compared with those of non-depressed controls to calculate affective bias scores. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess changes in bias scores over time and their relationship with depression severity measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17).

Results: We observed significant improvements in total affective bias scores over the course of DBS treatment in both cohorts. Pre-DBS, patients exhibited a negative affective bias, which was nearly eliminated post-DBS, with total bias scores approaching those of non-depressed controls. Positive valence trials showed significant improvement post-DBS, while negative valence trials showed no notable change. A control analysis indicated that stimulation status did not significantly affect bias scores, and thus stimulation status was excluded from further modeling. Linear mixed-effects modeling revealed that more negative bias scores were associated with higher HDRS-17 scores, particularly for positive valence stimuli. Additionally, greater time elapsed since DBS implantation was associated with a decrease in HDRS-17 scores, indicating clinical improvement over time.

Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that the affective bias task leverages the inherent negative interpretation bias seen in individuals with depression, providing a standardized measure of how these biases change over time. Unlike traditional mood assessments, which rely on subjective introspection, the affective bias task consistently measures changes in mood, offering potential as a tool to monitor mood changes and evaluate the candidacy of DBS treatment in refractory depression.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
6.90%
发文量
830
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is a first-tier electronic journal devoted to understanding the brain mechanisms supporting cognitive and social behavior in humans, and how these mechanisms might be altered in disease states. The last 25 years have seen an explosive growth in both the methods and the theoretical constructs available to study the human brain. Advances in electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropsychological, psychophysical, neuropharmacological and computational approaches have provided key insights into the mechanisms of a broad range of human behaviors in both health and disease. Work in human neuroscience ranges from the cognitive domain, including areas such as memory, attention, language and perception to the social domain, with this last subject addressing topics, such as interpersonal interactions, social discourse and emotional regulation. How these processes unfold during development, mature in adulthood and often decline in aging, and how they are altered in a host of developmental, neurological and psychiatric disorders, has become increasingly amenable to human neuroscience research approaches. Work in human neuroscience has influenced many areas of inquiry ranging from social and cognitive psychology to economics, law and public policy. Accordingly, our journal will provide a forum for human research spanning all areas of human cognitive, social, developmental and translational neuroscience using any research approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信