Can we use neuroimaging data to differentiate between subgroups of children with ADHD symptoms: A proof of concept study using latent class analysis of brain activity

Abstract

BackgroundMultiple pathway models of ADHD suggest that multiple, separable biological pathways may lead to symptoms of the disorder. If this is the case, it should be possible to identify subgroups of children with ADHD based on distinct patterns of brain activity. Previous studies have used latent class analysis (LCA) to define subgroups at the behavioral and cognitive level and to then test whether they differ at the neurobiological level. In this proof of concept study, we took a reverse approach. We applied LCA to functional imaging data from two previously published studies to explore whether we could identify subgroups of children with ADHD symptoms at the neurobiological level with a meaningful relation to behavior or neuropsychology.MethodsFifty-six children with symptoms of ADHD (27 children with ADHD and 29 children with ASD and ADHD symptoms) and 31 typically developing children performed two neuropsychological tasks assessing reward sensitivity and temporal expectancy during functional magnetic resonance imaging. LCA was used to identify subgroups with similar patterns of brain activity separately for children with ADHD-symptoms and typically developing children. Behavioral and neuropsychological differences between subgroups were subsequently investigated.ResultsFor typically developing children, a one-subgroup model gave the most parsimonious fit, whereas for children with ADHD-symptoms a two-subgroup model best fits the data. The first ADHD subgroup (n = 49) showed attenuated brain activity compared to the second subgroup (n = 7) and to typically developing children (n = 31). Notably, the ADHD subgroup with attenuated brain activity showed less behavioral problems in everyday life.ConclusionsIn this proof of concept study, we showed that we could identify distinct subgroups of children with ADHD-symptoms based on their brain activity profiles. Generalizability was limited due to the small sample size, but ultimately such neurobiological profiles could improve insight in individual prognosis and treatment options.

The Role of Quantitative Electroencephalogram in the Diagnosis and Subgrouping of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

“…In recent years, studies have actively assessed the heterogeneity of ADHD through dimensional approaches, including research domain criteria (RDoC) and hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP) to overcome the limitations of the DSM diagnosis systems based on clinical symptoms. In particular, machine learning studies have used MRI to subgroup and analyze the characteristics of ADHD [51][52][53] and these have made rapid progress. Similarly, QEEG has also been suggested as a promising research tool for ADHD subgrouping [54].…”

Natural kinds of mental disorder

“…In the context of categories of mental disorder, the Putnam/Kripke view entails that some of the currently recognised categories may pick out a group of people that share the same inner structure: causal mechanisms and processes that explain the frequent co-occurrence of observable symptoms. It may also be that current taxa comprise multiple causally responsible inner structures, like a recent neuro-imaging study suggesting that children diagnosed with ADHD actually fall into four distinct kinds (Lecei et al, 2019). In such cases the Putnam/Kripke view would be to abandon ADHD (like with jade), at least in scientific contexts, and to continue with the newly found kinds.…”

Which Child Will Benefit From a Behavioral Intervention for ADHD? A Pilot Study to Predict Intervention Efficacy From Individual Reward Sensitivity

“…; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013 ). This idea is underscored by the neurobiological heterogeneity found in the (dys)function of the ventral frontostriatal reward system ( de Zeeuw et al, 2012 ; Durston et al, 2011 ; Lecei et al, 2019 ; Makris et al, 2009 ; Nigg & Casey, 2005 ). In all, due to the variability in reward processing, it may only be a relevant area of dysfunction for some children with ADHD.…”