Summary
Background A leading transdiagnostic framework for psychiatry, NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), posits that cognitive abilities are a major factor (known as functional domain) underlying mental health across various diagnoses. Specifically, RDoC assumes the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health to be 1) manifested across neural and genetic units of analysis, 2) environmentally situated, and 3) reliable. These central assumptions have not been empirically validated. To address this, we used data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, which included 11,876 participants (5,680 females). The study spanned two years and focused on children aged 9-10 and 11-12.
Methods We applied machine learning to make out-of-sample predictions of cognitive abilities based on measures of mental health (emotional/behavioural problems, at-risk personalities), neuroimaging (45 types of brain MRI), polygenic scores (three definitions), and socio-demographics, lifestyles and developments (44 variables e.g., parental income, screen use). Using linear-mixed-model commonality analyses, we then examined the extent to which the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health was explained by the other measures.
Findings Mental health predicted cognitive abilities of unseen children (i.e., those who were not part of the modelling process) at r=.39. At baseline, this cognitive-abilities-mental-health relationship was accounted for by neuroimaging (69%), by polygenic scores (18%) and by socio-demographics, lifestyles and developments (70%). Moreover, the variance in the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health that was captured by socio-demographics, lifestyles and developments was explained by neuroimaging (66%) and polygenic scores (22%). These patterns were consistent across the two-time points.
Interpretation Consistent with RDoC, the cognitive abilities and mental health relationship was 1) manifested in both neuroimaging and polygenic scores, 2) explained by socio-demographics, lifestyles and developments and 3) reliable across two years. This supports RDoC’s view of cognitive abilities as an integrative-functional domain for the aetiology of mental health.
Funding Health Research Council Funding of New Zealand (21/618) and University of Otago
Evidence before this study It has been over a decade since the initiation of Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) by the US National Institute of Mental Health. The first article outlining its framework (Insel et al., 2010, AJP) has been cited over 6,650 times according to Google Scholar as of September 25th, 2023. In one estimate (Pacheco et al., 2022, JCPP), 644 RDoC-themed grants were funded between 2008-19 in the US. RDoC has also asserted its impact on psychiatric research outside of the US, as seen in frameworks such as the Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers (PRISM) funded by EU-Innovative Medicine Initiative (Kas et al., 2019, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews). Accordingly, RDoC has had a great influence on the landscape of modern psychiatric research. Yet, most RDoC-themed studies have focused on applying the framework (e.g., to improve the aetiology of certain mental illnesses), but few, if any, have tested its central assumptions regarding the properties of its functional domains. These assumptions were largely expert-drivenNY. Here, we focused on empirically validating the properties of one of the six major functional domains, cognitive systems (note we called them cognitive abilities here to map closer to a term used in cognitive literature).
Added value of this study During the time when RDoC was first developed, there was no large-scale neuroimaging and genetic data appropriate to validate the framework. The emergence of studies such as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) offers not only neuroimaging and genetic data but also high-quality data on phenotypes (e.g., mental health and cognitive abilities) along with socio-demographics and lifestyles which allows us to validate the RDoC framework. Using machine learning, we were able to quantify the extent to which the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health was 1) manifested in both neuroimaging and polygenic scores, 2) explained by socio-demographics, lifestyles, and developments and 3) reliable across two years. Accordingly, our study validated the role of cognitive abilities as a functional domain according to RDoC.
Implications of all of the available evidence We provide empirical evidence to support RDoC’s view of cognitive abilities as a transdiagnostic domain for mental health. By doing so, we laid a foundation to achieve the four goals set by RdoC (Pacheco et al., 2022, JCPP). First, we have addressed the aetiology of mental health by showing the reliable and predictable transdiagnostic relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health. Second, we also identified neuroimaging and genetic biomarkers that explain this relationship. Third, with our findings on the socio-demographics, lifestyles and developments, we touched on target identification. Finally, our use of machine learning to make out-of-sample predictions on individual children could lead to further development of personalised interventions. Overall, our findings lend credibility to RDoC research focusing on cognitive abilities.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). This is a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 10,000 children age 9 to 10 and follow them over 10 years into early adulthood. The ABCD Study is supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041022, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U01DA041089, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, U24DA041123, U24DA041147, U01DA041093 and U01DA041025. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners.html. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/scientists/workgroups/. ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or ABCD consortium investigators. We thank the ABCD team. The authors wish to acknowledge the use of New Zealand eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) high performance computing facilities, consulting support and/or training services as part of this research. New Zealand national facilities are provided by NeSI and funded jointly by NeSI collaborator institutions and through the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Research Infrastructure programme. URL https://www.nesi.org.nz. Yue Wang and Narun Pat were supported by Health Research Council Funding (21/618) and by University of Otago.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We used publicly available ABCD 4.0 data provided by the ABCD study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/abcd/).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
We used publicly available ABCD 4.0 data provided by the ABCD study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/abcd/). We uploaded the R analysis script and detailed outputs here: https://github.com/HAM-lab-Otago-University/Commonality-analysis-ABCD4.0
https://github.com/HAM-lab-Otago-University/Commonality-analysis-ABCD4.0
