More inclusive bipolar mixed depression definition by permitting overlapping and non-overlapping mood elevation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the strengths and limitations of a mixed bipolar depression definition made more inclusive than that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by counting not only 'non-overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (NOMES) as in DSM-5, but also 'overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (OMES, psychomotor agitation, distractibility, and irritability). METHODS: Among bipolar disorder (BD) out-patients assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, we assessed prevalence, demographics, and clinical correlates of mixed vs. pure depression, using more inclusive (≥3 NOMES/OMES) and less inclusive DSM-5 (≥3 NOMES) definitions. RESULTS: Among 153 depressed BD, counting not only NOMES but also OMES yielded a three-fold higher mixed depression rate (22.9% vs. 7.2%) and important statistically significant clinical correlates for mixed compared to pure depression (more lifetime anxiety disorder comorbidity, more current irritability, and less current antidepressant use), which were not significant using the DSM-5 threshold. CONCLUSION: To conclude, further studies with larger numbers of patients with DSM-5 bipolar mixed depression assessing strengths and limitations of more inclusive mixed depression definitions are warranted, including efforts to ascertain whether or not OMES should count toward mixed depression.

More inclusive bipolar mixed depression definitions by requiring fewer non-overlapping mood elevation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Assess strengths and limitations of mixed bipolar depression definitions made more inclusive than that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by requiring fewer than three 'non-overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (NOMES). METHOD: Among bipolar disorder (BD) out-patients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, we assessed prevalence, demographics, and clinical correlates of mixed vs. pure depression, using less inclusive (≥3 NOMES, DSM-5), more inclusive (≥2 NOMES), and most inclusive (≥1 NOMES) definitions. RESULTS: Among 153 depressed BD, compared to less inclusive DSM-5 threshold, our more and most inclusive thresholds, yielded approximately two- and five-fold higher mixed depression rates (7.2%, 15.0%, and 34.6% respectively), and important statistically significant clinical correlates for mixed compared to pure depression (e.g. more lifetime anxiety disorder comorbidity, more current irritability), which were not significant using the DSM-5 threshold. CONCLUSION: Further studies assessing strengths and limitations of more inclusive mixed depression definitions are warranted, including assessing the extent to which enhanced statistical power vs. other factors contributes to more vs. less inclusive mixed bipolar depression thresholds having more statistically significant clinical correlates, and whether 'overlapping' mood elevation symptoms should be counted.

Voxel-based comparison of state-of-the-art reconstruction algorithms for 18F-FDG PET brain imaging using simulated and clinical data.

UNLABELLED: The resolution of a PET scanner (2.5-4.5mm for brain imaging) is similar to the thickness of the cortex in the (human) brain (2.5mm on average), hampering accurate activity distribution reconstruction. Many techniques to compensate for the limited resolution during or post-reconstruction have been proposed in the past and have been shown to improve the quantitative accuracy. In this study, state-of-the-art reconstruction techniques are compared on a voxel-basis for quantification accuracy and group analysis using both simulated and measured data of healthy volunteers and patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Maximum a posteriori (MAP) reconstructions using either a segmentation-based or a segmentation-less anatomical prior were compared to maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) reconstruction with resolution recovery. As anatomical information, a spatially aligned 3D T1-weighted magnetic resonance image was used. Firstly, the algorithms were compared using normal brain images to detect systematic bias with respect to the true activity distribution, as well as systematic differences between two methods. Secondly, it was verified whether the algorithms yielded similar results in a group comparison study. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between the reconstructed and the true activity, with the largest errors when using (post-smoothed) MLEM. Only 5-10% underestimation in cortical gray matter voxel activity was found for both MAP reconstructions. Higher errors were observed at GM edges. MAP with the segmentation-based prior also resulted in a significant bias in the subcortical regions due to segmentation inaccuracies, while MAP with the anatomical prior which does not need segmentation did not. Significant differences in reconstructed activity were also found between the algorithms at similar locations (mainly in gray matter edge voxels and in cerebrospinal fluid voxels) in the simulated as well as in the clinical data sets. Nevertheless, when comparing two groups, very similar regions of significant hypometabolism were detected by all algorithms. CONCLUSION: Including anatomical a priori information during reconstruction in combination with resolution modeling yielded accurate gray matter activity estimates, and a significant improvement in quantification accuracy was found when compared to post-smoothed MLEM reconstruction with resolution modeling. AsymBowsher provided the most accurate subcortical GM activity estimates. It is also reassuring that the differences found between the algorithms did not hamper the detection of hypometabolic regions in the gray matter when performing a voxel-based group comparison. Nevertheless, the size of the detected clusters differed. More elaborated and application-specific studies are required to decide which algorithm is best for a group analysis.