Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct;55(10):1273-1282.
doi: 10.1007/s00127-020-01843-7. Epub 2020 Feb 11.

Network structure of depression symptomology in participants with and without depressive disorder: the population-based Health 2000-2011 study

Christian Hakulinen  1   2 , Eiko I Fried  3 , Laura Pulkki-Råback  4 , Marianna Virtanen  5 , Jaana Suvisaari  6 , Marko Elovainio  7   8
Affiliations

Network structure of depression symptomology in participants with and without depressive disorder: the population-based Health 2000-2011 study

Christian Hakulinen et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Putative causal relations among depressive symptoms in forms of network structures have been of recent interest, with prior studies suggesting that high connectivity of the symptom network may drive the disease process. We examined in detail the network structure of depressive symptoms among participants with and without depressive disorders (DD; consisting of major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymia) at two time points.

Methods: Participants were from the nationally representative Health 2000 and Health 2011 surveys. In 2000 and 2011, there were 5998 healthy participants (DD-) and 595 participants with DD diagnosis (DD+). Depressive symptoms were measured using the 13-item version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Fused Graphical Lasso was used to estimate network structures, and mixed graphical models were used to assess network connectivity and symptom centrality. Network community structure was examined using the walktrap-algorithm and minimum spanning trees (MST). Symptom centrality was evaluated with expected influence and participation coefficients.

Results: Overall connectivity did not differ between networks from participants with and without DD, but more simple community structure was observed among those with DD compared to those without DD. Exploratory analyses revealed small differences between the samples in the order of one centrality estimate participation coefficient.

Conclusions: Community structure, but not overall connectivity of the symptom network, may be different for people with DD compared to people without DD. This difference may be of importance when estimating the overall connectivity differences between groups with and without mental disorders.

Keywords: Connectivity; Depression; Network; Symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration how different community structures can lead to the same connectivity and centrality measures
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Visualization of the Fused Graphical Lasso (FGL) estimated networks of depressive symptoms in participants without (DD−) and with (DD+) major depressive disorder or dysthymia. Symptoms are as follows: b1 = Depressed mood/sadness; b2 = Pessimistic about the future; b3 = Low self-esteem/past failure; b4 = Loss of pleasure/dissatisfaction; b5 = Feeling guilty; b6 = Feeling disappointed in oneself/self-dislike; b7 = Self harm; b8 = Loosing interest in other people; b9 = Difficulties in decision-making; b10 = Dissatisfaction with once appearance/worthlessness; b11 = Loss of energy; b12 = Tiredness; b13 = Loss of appetite
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The community structure of the networks of depressive symptoms in DD− and DD+ participants
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Minimum spanning trees of depressive symptoms (between individual networks) in DD− and DD+ participants
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The two centrality measures: node strength(unstandardized) and expected influence and participation coefficient for depressive symptoms in DD− and DD+
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cuijpers P. The challenges of improving treatments for depression. JAMA. 2018;320(24):2529–2530. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.17824. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen L, Eaton WW, Gallo JJ, Nestadt G. Understanding the heterogeneity of depression through the triad of symptoms, course and risk factors: a longitudinal, population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2000;59(1):1–11. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(99)00132-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fried EI, Nesse RM. Depression is not a consistent syndrome: an investigation of unique symptom patterns in the STAR*D study. J Affect Disord. 2015;172:96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fried EI, van Borkulo CD, Epskamp S, Schoevers RA, Tuerlinckx F, Borsboom D. Measuring depression over time … Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(11):1354–1367. doi: 10.1037/pas0000275. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fried EI, Nesse RM, Zivin K, Guille C, Sen S. Depression is more than the sum score of its parts: individual DSM symptoms have different risk factors. Psychol Med. 2014;44(10):2067–2076. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713002900. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources