Abstract
Robust evidence from adult samples indicates that neurocognitive dysfunction is a hallmark of many mental illnesses, contributing to the loss of daily function and quality of life that these illnesses cause. However, it is still unclear whether neurocognitive deficits associated with mental illnesses begin to manifest well before adulthood or impact treatment response. Here we address this gap by evaluating neurocognitive function in four groups of children and adolescents with different mental illnesses compared to their matched healthy peers. Our team evaluated the neurocognitive performance of youth diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (N = 343), anorexia (N = 40), first onset psychosis (N = 25) and functional neurological disorder (N = 56) versus age-matched healthy controls (N = 483), cross-sectionally. Performance was assessed using an objective assessment battery designed for use across diagnoses and settings and validated for its correlations with underlying brain structure and function. The following cognitive domains were assessed: sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, decision speed, executive function, information processing speed, psychomotor response speed, response inhibition, verbal memory and working memory. Distinct profiles of neurocognitive dysfunction were detected for each diagnosis relative to the healthy reference group. Youth with first onset psychosis displayed the most severe and generalized impairments across domains of sustained attention, verbal memory, response inhibition, cognitive flexibility, information processing speed and working memory. Children and adolescents with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder showed impairments in multiple domains of at least moderate severity with the most pronounced impairments in executive function, sustained attention and working memory. Children and adolescents with anorexia displayed more specific moderate impairments limited to cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, sustained attention, decision speed and verbal memory. Impairments in functional neurological disorder were also relatively specific and moderate, limited to executive function, working memory, cognitive flexibility, decision speed and information processing speed. These findings suggest that neurocognitive impairment in mental illness is transdiagnostic and can be detected as early as childhood or adolescence with standardized computerized testing.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Cognitive dysfunction is a concurrent feature of multiple mental illnesses among adults and youth. Patients’ performance on neuropsychological tests can be used to quantify cognitive dysfunction. These tests involve performing tasks and can provide objective measurements of cognitive domains such as set shifting, response inhibition, working memory, fluency, planning, verbal memory, nonverbal memory, processing speed, attention and visuospatial function1.
Regarding findings in adults, a 2021 systematic review of meta-analyses2 compared cognitive performance in 97 samples of individuals suffering from various psychiatric disorders to cognitive performance in healthy reference data. Results indicated an impairment in at least one cognitive domain in patients with autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, depression, schizoaffective disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorders and Tourette’s syndrome, with effect sizes ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 (ref. 2). In particular, disorders characterized by psychotic symptoms, such as schizophrenia, showed the largest deficits in cognitive performance. This is in line with previous evidence showing that speed of processing, verbal learning and memory, visuospatial learning and memory, working memory, attention and problem solving all show medium to large impairments in patients with psychosis compared to healthy samples3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. Conversely, eating disorders and substance use disorders showed the smallest cognitive deficits, although these were detectable across all examined domains2. This is consistent with previous findings showing that patients with anorexia nervosa (‘anorexia’ hereafter), at least in the acute state, perform worse than controls in particular in tasks involving attention, processing speed, memory and visuospatial construction16,17,18,19,20.
Overall, these results suggest that cognitive deficits are a transdiagnostic feature of mental illness, that is, a feature that cuts across traditional diagnostic boundaries. Therefore, they are not limited to disorders using cognitive dysfunction as part of their diagnostic criteria. So far, studies of clinical samples have largely investigated cognitive impairments in adults with mental illness, despite the majority of mental illnesses emerging in childhood and adolescence21,22,23,24. Mental illnesses are the leading cause of disability in children and adolescents, affecting an estimated 13.4% of youth worldwide25,26. Evidence suggests that cognitive deficits associated with mental illnesses begin to manifest before adulthood27,28,29,30,31,32. For example, in youth suffering from bipolar disorder, research using multiple assessments has shown moderate to large impairments in verbal learning, verbal memory, working memory, visual learning and visual memory33,34. In early onset schizophrenia, studies have found large deficits in general intellectual ability, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory and learning; medium deficits in rule discovery and perseveration, planning and problem solving; and minimal deficits in attention35. In youth with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), performance on neurocognitive tests has consistently shown decreased overall cognitive ability, as well as worse performance across neuropsychological measures of learning, spanning memory and executive function36,37,38,39,40. In youth with anorexia, studies have found poorer nonverbal performance, altered attention to disorder-related stimuli, perceptual processing impairment in discriminating body images, weaknesses in central coherence, set-shifting weaknesses at low weight status, decision-making weaknesses and greater neural resources required for working memory41. Finally, studies in youth with major depressive disorder have found deficits in psychomotor speed, attention, memory and executive function42.
Previously, we have added to this literature by using standardized cognitive tests to assess cognitive impairments in youth within individual diagnostic groups, including ADHD43,44, first onset psychosis45, anorexia17 and functional neurological disorder46. However, it is unclear how different cognitive domains are affected differently within diagnoses and how the dysfunctions of each cognitive domain in one mental illness compare transdiagnostically to dysfunctions of the same domain in other illnesses. In this Article, a unique focus is a new transdiagnostic evaluation comparing cognitive performance in patients aged 6–18 years diagnosed with ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder with the cognitive performance of age-matched healthy controls. Prior findings are based on multiple different types of assessment batteries, but we assessed cognitive performance using the same standardized web-based cognitive battery in all groups1, thus enabling us to quantify cognitive deficits in each clinical diagnosis consistently. Also, by collecting the same battery of tests across diagnoses, we were able to directly compare the performance in each cognitive domain between every diagnosis pair and, vice versa, the performance between every cognitive domain pair in each diagnosis. We focused on the cognitive domains of attention, planning, response inhibition, verbal fluency, verbal memory, visual memory and working memory to align with previous adult literature. We hypothesized that youth suffering from the included diagnoses would display cognitive deficits compared to age-matched controls and that findings would mirror previous findings in adult clinical populations.
Results
A summary of the demographic characteristics of the participants is given in Table 1.
We used a linear mixed model to assess the impact of each diagnosis on performance in our cognitive domains of interest. Consistent with our hypotheses, all diagnoses showed an impairment in at least one cognitive function measure compared to healthy matched controls and each diagnosis showed a distinctive profile of cognitive dysfunction (cognitive domain × diagnosis interaction; F = 8.148, P < 0.001).
Figures 1 and 2 summarize the performance of each group of participants for each cognitive domain. Table 2 presents the results of all significant comparisons between the cognitive performance in each diagnosis and healthy controls. Table 3 presents the results of all significant comparisons between each pair of diagnoses within each cognitive domain (see Supplementary Table 1 for all comparisons, including nonsignificant ones). Supplementary Table 2 presents the results of all significant comparisons between each pair of cognitive domains within each diagnosis, and Supplementary Table 3 presents all comparisons, including nonsignificant ones.
The following sections outline the cognitive deficits of each diagnosis in detail.
ADHD
Patients with ADHD performed worse than controls across all domains (see Table 2, Fig. 1 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 1 for raw data). Deficits within verbal memory (mean difference 0.75, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 10.42, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.08) and sustained attention were the strongest (mean difference 0.73, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 10.14, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.048). The ADHD group was the only group to display significant dysfunction in psychomotor function compared to healthy controls (mean difference 0.42, s.e.m. 0.08, t = 5.41, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.598). Other domains negatively affected include executive function (mean difference 0.67, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 9.19, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.970), response inhibition (mean difference 0.63, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 8.94, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.91), cognitive flexibility (mean difference 0.42, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 5.87, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.599), decision speed (mean difference 0.45, s.e.m. 0.08, t = 5.69, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.644), information processing speed (mean difference 0.36, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 5.01, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.513) and working memory (mean difference 0.55, s.e.m. 0.07, t = 7.78, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 0.794).
Patients with ADHD performed significantly worse than patients with anorexia in tasks measuring information processing speed (mean difference −0.48, s.e.m. 0.16, t = −2.96, Pcorr = 0.026, d = −0.685) and worse than patients with functional neurological disorder in response inhibition tasks (mean difference −0.48, s.e.m. 0.16, t = −3.08, Pcorr = 0.018, d = −0.689; see Table 3, Fig. 2 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 2 for raw data).
Anorexia
Patients with anorexia displayed dysfunction in five out of the nine total cognitive domains tested (~56%; see Table 2, Fig. 1 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 1 for raw data). Performance was worst in tasks measuring response inhibition (mean difference 1.07, s.e.m. 0.18, t = 6.14, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.548) and verbal memory (mean difference 0.71, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 4.33, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.021). Other domains negatively affected include cognitive flexibility (mean difference 0.46, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 2.84, Pcorr = 0.037, d = 0.668), sustained attention (mean difference 0.51, s.e.m. 0.17, t = 2.90, Pcorr = 0.031, d = 0.73) and decision speed (mean difference 0.51, s.e.m. 0.18, t = 2.85, Pcorr = 0.036, d = 0.728).
Patients with anorexia performed significantly worse than the functional neurological group in tasks testing response inhibition (mean difference −0.92, s.e.m. 0.20, t = −4.56, Pcorr < 0.001, d = −1.327; Table 3 and Fig. 2).
First onset psychosis
Compared to their healthy counterparts, patients with first onset psychosis displayed significant dysfunction in the majority of cognitive domains tested (six out of nine, ~67%; see Table 2, Fig. 1 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 1 for raw data). Patients with first onset psychosis displayed striking deficits in sustained attention (mean difference 1.88, s.e.m. 0.20, t = 9.38, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 2.716), verbal memory (mean difference 1.69, s.e.m. 0.19, t = 8.77, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 2.433) and response inhibition (mean difference 1.46, s.e.m. 0.20, t = 7.28, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 2.107). Other domains affected include cognitive flexibility (mean difference 1.03, s.e.m. 0.19, t = 5.37, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.489), information processing speed (mean difference 0.92, s.e.m. 0.20, t = 4.72, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.327) and working memory (mean difference 0.96, s.e.m. 0.19, t = 5.01, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.388).
Compared to other diagnostic groups, patients with first onset psychosis showed particularly pronounced overall cognitive dysfunction. The first onset psychosis group performed significantly worse compared to at least one other diagnostic group in almost every cognitive domain, with the exception of executive function. The most distinctive patterns of differences between patients with first onset psychosis and other diagnostic groups were seen in tasks measuring verbal memory and sustained attention (see Table 3, Fig. 2 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 2 for raw data).
Functional neurological disorder
Patients with functional neurological disorder displayed deficits in five out of the nine tested cognitive domains (~56%; see Table 2, Fig. 1 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 1 for raw data). Deficits in executive function appeared to be an exceptional struggle for patients with functional neurological disorder (mean difference 1.13, s.e.m. 0.18, t = 6.45, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.627). Patients with functional neurological disorder also particularly underperformed in tasks challenging working memory (mean difference 0.89, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 5.54, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.285). Other domains affected include cognitive flexibility (mean difference 0.50, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 3.14, Pcorr = 0.015, d = 0.726), decision speed (mean difference 0.55, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 3.43, Pcorr = 0.006, d = 0.799) and information processing speed (mean difference 0.76, s.e.m. 0.16, t = 4.74, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.094).
Patients with functional neurological disorder displayed greater dysfunction than patients with anorexia in multiple domains. The functional neurological disorder group performed significantly worse than those with anorexia in tasks measuring executive function (mean difference 0.79, s.e.m. 0.21, t = 3.78, Pcorr = 0.002, d = 1.144), information processing (mean difference 0.88, s.e.m. 0.19, t = 4.54, Pcorr < 0.001, d = 1.267) and working memory (mean difference 0.74, s.e.m. 0.20, t = 3.80, Pcorr = 0.001, d = 1.068; see Table 3, Fig. 2 for model effects and Supplementary Fig. 2 for raw data).
Discussion
Previous investigations of adults have shown that cognitive dysfunction is a key feature of mental illness regardless of specific diagnosis. We aimed to extend these findings to children and adolescents suffering from ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder. Consistent with our hypotheses, all clinical groups displayed impairments within at least one cognitive domain compared to age-matched healthy controls. Our findings suggest that cognitive dysfunction exists as a transdiagnostic feature of mental illness that can be identified with standardized cognitive testing as early as childhood and adolescence.
Each clinical group sampled displayed a distinct pattern of cognitive dysfunction. Children and adolescents with ADHD showed a diffuse pattern of differences in performance with healthy controls, while displaying especially exceptional impairment in verbal memory and sustained attention. This broad impairment found in our sample aligns with results in adult literature, which indicated impairments in response inhibition, working memory and executive function47,48,49,50.
Compared to ADHD, cognitive deficits in youth anorexia were more specific and limited to cognitive flexibility, sustained attention, decision speed, response inhibition and verbal memory. This is consistent with previous findings showing that patients with anorexia have smaller but still detectable performance deficits across several cognitive domains compared to controls2,16,17,18,19,20.
Youth with first onset psychosis displayed the most severe impairment of any clinical group in the sustained attention, verbal memory, response inhibition, cognitive flexibility, information processing speed and working memory domains. This pattern and intensity of dysfunction was consistent with what has been detected within adult samples2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. Furthermore, it also matched what was found in other previous studies focusing on early onset psychosis in adolescents51,52,53,54,55,56,57. Importantly, evidence suggests that patients with youth onset schizophrenia have more severe cognitive deficits than those with late onset schizophrenia54 and that these cognitive deficits are relatively stable over time57,58,59. Thus, early detection of cognitive impairment through behavioral testing could be important to intervene on these impairments early on.
Cognitive dysfunction in youth with functional neurological disorder was limited to executive function, working memory, cognitive flexibility, decision speed and information processing speed. Executive dysfunction compared to healthy controls uniquely distinguished youth with functional neurological disorder from other diagnostic groups. Although sparse, adult literature also suggests impairments in working memory in these patients60. Limited evidence also shows that adults with functional neurological disorder also suffer from executive function deficits, particularly planning60.
Deficits in cognitive flexibility appeared to be the most stable dysfunction across diagnostic groups, as all four clinical groups sampled performed significantly worse than their healthy counterparts. Within the cognitive flexibility domain, first onset psychosis displayed a significant difference in performance compared to patients with ADHD.
Our findings support the assertion that cognitive impairment is a pervasive feature of mental illness, even in diagnoses that do not include cognitive impairment as a core diagnostic criterion (such as anorexia). Importantly, our findings also demonstrate that cognitive impairment in mental illness can be detected as early as childhood or adolescence with standardized computerized testing.
These results additionally present important future research and clinical implications. First, the transdiagnostic nature of overall cognitive dysfunction but unique patterns of specific impairments among diagnoses suggests that objective measurement of cognition can potentially serve as a helpful tool for mental health clinicians for early detection and differentiation of mental illnesses in youth. This is especially important considering our results derived from youth as young as 6 years of age. Traditionally, many mental health diagnostic criteria rely on patients’ ability to recognize their dysfunction or emotions and be able to explain them in detail. This reliance on self-reported symptoms presents unique barriers for youth mental health diagnostics due to developmental realities. Future research can build on this work by further investigating cognitive signatures in other widely experienced psychiatric disorders in youth such as anxiety and depression. This study also suggests that cognitive dysfunction could be a target for treatment using strategies such as cognitive remediation that has been identified as effective in disorders such as schizophrenia61.
Our team’s prior work suggests that up to 27% of adult patients suffering from depression display cognitive impairments measured by the same tests used in the current study62. These patients are less likely to remit with standard antidepressant treatment and are likely to continue experiencing cognitive impairments despite any improvement in mood symptoms. Future studies should investigate the relationship of cognitive dysfunction and treatment outcomes among various youth mental health diagnoses. Another important future direction would be to investigate whether findings generalize to other widely used cognitive batteries (for example, ref. 63). Finally, these findings could be expanded by investigating the neuroimaging correlates of cognitive dysfunction in children and adolescents with mental illness64,65. For example, impaired segregation of task-positive and task-negative brain networks has been found in ADHD and could explain the diffuse performance deficit in this disorder66. In first onset (as well as chronic) psychosis, efficiency of the frontoparietal network and cingulo-opercular networks was associated with worse performance on standardized tests of general cognition67. Cognitive deficits in anorexia have been found to be associated with disruption of connectivity between the thalamus and prefrontal cortex68. Children and adolescents with functional neurological disorder showed altered connectivity in several brain networks, but to the best of our knowledge, how this relates to cognitive performance has not yet been investigated. Extending these neuroimaging insights could help advance future precision approaches for early treatment of developmental and mental health disorders.
The current study is subject to limitations. First, as referenced earlier, the sample analyzed features of only four clinical diagnoses, since these were the only ones available in the BrainNet database, namely ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder. Future studies should extend investigations of cognitive impairments to other mental illnesses common in childhood and adolescence, such as mood (for example, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder) and anxiety disorders. As every diagnostic group in our sample featured some degree of cognitive impairment, we anticipate that future studies investigating other diagnoses will produce similar results. Also, even though our dataset allowed us to compare results across several diagnoses, the sample sizes for each were heterogeneous. In particular, future studies investigating cognitive performance in anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder using larger samples than ours might be able to detect subtle performance deficits in these diagnoses that we could not detect. Next, the current study was not able to consider the impact of social determinants relevant to brain health such as education access and quality, economic stability and social and community context due to inconsistent reporting of relevant data from the included protocols. Future studies should make the effort to collect and examine these important demographic factors related to brain development and overall brain health. Additional limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the current results. This is particularly pertinent for disorders such as anorexia and first onset psychosis that often worsen over time. Future endeavors should include longitudinal analyses to evaluate the effect of illness duration on cognition. Finally, another limitation was that we could not consider the potential confounding effects of treatment in analyses. Future studies should account for the potential impact of treatments on cognitive performance by clinical diagnosis and assess if these treatments improve cognitive deficits.
Methods
Participants
The data used in the present work were downloaded from BrainNet, a large database for mental health research, which combines data from a number of separate studies (access to BrainNet can be requested69). In particular, the current sample was recruited through clinical services associated with the University of Sydney, University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne and through advertising and self-referral. Inclusion criteria were age between 6 and 18 years old; diagnosis of ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder (clinical groups) or no psychiatric diagnosis (controls); capacity to undergo a computerized test; normal (or corrected to normal) vision; and ability to use a keyboard. No data from minors with other diagnoses were available in BrainNet; therefore, we focused on ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder. The only exception to this was one single minor with post-traumatic stress disorder and two matched controls from the same site, which we removed from our analyses. In this sample, with ‘first onset psychosis’ we mean minors who had experienced their first episode of a psychosis with onset before 18 years. Participants were excluded if they had a developmental delay (assessed by intelligence quotient testing), a known medical condition such as epilepsy, a history of head trauma causing a loss of consciousness for 10 min or more or substance dependence. Each included dataset and corresponding study was approved by the Sydney West Area Health Service’s and Children’s Hospital at Westmead’s human research ethics committees. Approval numbers are as follows: psychosis sample and corresponding healthy controls (‘the first episode project’), WSAHS HREC 98/12/3.3(682); ADHD sample and corresponding healthy controls, HREC 2006/12/4.5(2502); functional neurological disorder and corresponding healthy controls, HREC/2006/8/4.15(2415); and anorexia and corresponding health controls, HS/TG HREC2003/12/4.14 (1785). All participants and parents/guardians, as appropriate, signed and dated an approved informed consent form. Where participants consented, their data were made available for open sharing in BrainNet. All research complies with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).
Diagnosis of clinical groups was confirmed by consensus from clinicians using the following criteria and scales. For ADHD, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition (DSM-IV) and Conners’ Rating Scale70 were used; for details see ref. 43. For anorexia, Structured Clinical Interview (DSM-IV) and physical conditions were used; for details see ref. 17. For first onset psychosis, Structured Clinical Interview (DSM-IV) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale71 were used; for details see ref. 45. For functional neurological disorder, Structured Clinical Interview (DSM-IV) was used; for details see ref. 46. For each clinical group, an age- and sex-matched sample of healthy individuals was recruited as a control group (Table 1).
Race, ethnicity and other socially relevant groupings were not included in the current analysis. This is because the data sourced for this study were archival data and race, ethnicity and other socially relevant groupings were not present in all available data.
Neurocognitive assessments
Cognitive performance was assessed using a standardized, computerized test battery, ‘IntegNeuro’, which has established norms across nine decades of the healthy lifespan, test–retest reliability72, construct validity with respect to traditional neuropsychological batteries and brain measures73, and utility in distinguishing cognitive impairments in psychiatric groups1,74. IntegNeuro assessed nine cognitive domains (and tests): executive function (Maze), response inhibition (Go-No-Go), cognitive flexibility (Stroop), verbal memory (Verbal Learning and Memory), sustained attention (Continuous Performance Test), decision speed (Choice Reaction Time), psychomotor function (Motor Tapping), information processing speed (Switching of Attention) and working memory (Digit Span). All tests were visual. See Supplementary Table 4 for a description of these tests. IntegNeuro provides performance measures for each of the tests named above, expressed on the basis of their deviation from a reference healthy population and matched by sex and age. A score for each cognitive domain was then obtained by averaging performance on each test within each of the nine domains (Supplementary Table 4). Scores >5 s.d. from the norm were considered outliers and removed (number of values removed: executive function, 11, 1.16%; response inhibition, 16, 1.69%; cognitive flexibility, 0, 0%; verbal memory, 0, 0%; sustained attention, 1, 0.11%; decision speed, 7, 0.74%; psychomotor function, 15, 1.58%; information processing speed, 1, 0.11%; and working memory, 0, 0%).
Statistical analysis
All analyses were conducted in RStudio 2022.07.2, R version 4.1.3, running on macOS Ventura 13.2. Code for these analyses is available at ref. 75.
Mixed linear model
We modeled the cognitive domain scores for each participant using a mixed linear model to take into account the fact that performance in all nine cognitive domains was measured in each participant. The model independent variables were diagnosis (factor with levels: control, ADHD, anorexia, first onset psychosis and functional neurological disorder), cognitive domain (factor with levels: sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, decision speed, executive function, information processing speed, psychomotor response speed, response inhibition, verbal memory and working memory) and site (factor with levels: Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney); one random intercept was fit for every participant, and the dependent variable was the IntegNeuro performance score.
In mathematical notation, the model can be written as follows:
In this formula:
-
β0 is the average intercept across all subjects.
-
ui is the random intercept for the ith subject.
-
β1, β2, β3 and β4 are the fixed effect coefficients for diagnosis, domain, the diagnosis × domain interaction and site, respectively.
-
Diagnosisijk is the value of the predictor variable ‘diagnosis’ for the ith subject, measured for the jth domain at the kth site.
-
Domainijk is the value of the predictor variable ‘domain’ for the ith subject, measured for the jth domain at the kth site.
-
Siteijk is the value of the predictor variable ‘site’ for the ith subject, measured for the jth domain at the kth site.
-
ϵijk is the residual error for the ith subject, measured for the jth domain at the kth site, assumed to follow a normal distribution ϵ ∼ N(0, σ2).
After fitting our mixed linear model, we used F tests to assess the significance of the main effects of all our predictors, as well as of the cognitive domain × diagnosis interaction, to test whether different diagnoses had different profiles of cognitive dysfunction across domains. We considered significant tests for which P < 0.05. We followed up the significant cognitive domain × diagnosis interaction by comparing the performance in each cognitive domain between each pair of diagnoses using t-tests. These tests were adjusted for multiple comparisons by using Tukey’s method and were considered significant if Pcorr < 0.05.
Power simulation
To determine our power to detect a significant cognitive domain × diagnosis interaction using our mixed linear model given our sample size, we conducted a simulation (see Supplementary Methods for details). The simulation showed that, given a mean difference in cognitive performance between clinical participants and controls of at least 0.3 and given a number of dysfunctional cognitive domains in each clinical group between 2 and 6, using an α = 0.05, we would achieve >80% power to detect our interaction of interest (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
Data used in this study are available on request from Stanford BrainNet at https://www.stanfordpmhw.com/datasets. The BrainNet repository meets the requirements for being public but also aligns with the procedures of other official public and scientific repositories such as HCP, ABCD and NDA. This choice is in line with the FAIRness guidelines, and it respects the original funders’ requirements, allowing for appropriate source contributions and citations. Our approach is specifically designed for scientific use, which includes limiting access to for-profit entities to comply with the original funders’ stipulations and the consent forms. Therefore, total open access is not feasible. Our intention is to provide public access that is consistent with the consent agreements and the original funders’ intentions, similar to the data shared through NIH repositories. On Stanford BrainNet, we established a data access request form that screens users, similar to other public repositories.
Code availability
Code for the analyses is available at https://github.com/leotozzi88/cognition_minors_2023.
References
Paul, R. H. et al. Preliminary validity of ‘integneuro’: a new computerized battery of neurocognitive tests. Int. J. Neurosci. 115, 1549–1567 (2005).
Abramovitch, A., Short, T. & Schweiger, A. The C factor: cognitive dysfunction as a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 86, 102007 (2021).
Nuechterlein, K. H., Robbins, T. W. & Einat, H. Distinguishing separable domains of cognition in human and animal studies: what separations are optimal for targeting interventions? A summary of recommendations from breakout group 2 at the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia New Approaches Conference. Schizophr. Bull. 31, 870–874 (2005).
Mesholam-Gately, R. I., Giuliano, A. J., Goff, K. P., Faraone, S. V. & Seidman, L. J. Neurocognition in first-episode schizophrenia: a meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology 23, 315–336 (2009).
Heinrichs, R. W. & Zakzanis, K. K. Neurocognitive deficit in schizophrenia: a quantitative review of the evidence. Neuropsychology 12, 426–445 (1998).
Carter, C. S., Robertson, L. C. & Nordahl, T. E. Abnormal processing of irrelevant information in chronic schizophrenia: selective enhancement of Stroop facilitation. Psychiatry Res. 41, 137–146 (1992).
Green, M. F., Horan, W. P. & Lee, J. Nonsocial and social cognition in schizophrenia: current evidence and future directions. World Psychiatry 18, 146–161 (2019).
Guo, J., Ragland, J. & Carter, C. Memory and cognition in schizophrenia. Mol. Psychiatry 24, 633–642 (2019).
Keefe, R. S. E. et al. Characteristics of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery in a 29-site antipsychotic schizophrenia clinical trial. Schizophr. Res. 125, 161–168 (2011).
Carter, C. S., Mintun, M., Nichols, T. & Cohen, J. D. Anterior cingulate gyrus dysfunction and selective attention deficits in schizophrenia: [15O]H2O PET study during single-trial Stroop task performance. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1670–1675 (1997).
Fusar-Poli, P. et al. Cognitive functioning in prodromal psychosis: a meta-analysis. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 69, 562–571 (2012).
White, T., Schmidt, M. & Karatekin, C. Verbal and visuospatial working memory development and deficits in children and adolescents with schizophrenia. Early Interv. Psychiatry 4, 305–313 (2010).
Ho, B. C., Wassink, T. H., O'Leary, D. S., Sheffield, V. C. & Andreasen, N. C. Catechol-O-methyl transferase Val158Met gene polymorphism in schizophrenia: working memory, frontal lobe MRI morphology and frontal cerebral blood flow. Mol. Psychiatry 10, 287–298 (2005).
Ragland, J. D. et al. Prefrontal activation deficits during episodic memory in schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 166, 863–874 (2009).
Chavez-Baldini, U. et al. The relationship between cognitive functioning and psychopathology in patients with psychiatric disorders: a transdiagnostic network analysis. Psychol. Med. 53, 476–485 (2023).
Brand-Gothelf, A., Leor, S., Apter, A. & Fennig, S. The impact of comorbid depressive and anxiety disorders on severity of anorexia nervosa in adolescent girls. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 202, 759–762 (2014).
Hatch, A. et al. In first presentation adolescent anorexia nervosa, do cognitive markers of underweight status change with weight gain following a refeeding intervention? Int. J. Eat. Disord. 43, 295–306 (2010).
Keifer, E. et al. Predictors of neuropsychological recovery in treatment for anorexia nervosa. Eat. Disord. 18, 302–317 (2010).
Lozano-Serra, E., Andrés-Perpiña, S., Lázaro-García, L. & Castro-Fornieles, J. Adolescent anorexia nervosa: cognitive performance after weight recovery. J. Psychosom. Res. 76, 6–11 (2014).
Moser, D. J. et al. Neuropsychological functioning pretreatment and posttreatment in an inpatient eating disorders program. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 33, 64–70 (2003).
Kim-Cohen, J. et al. Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: developmental follow-back of a prospective-longitudinal cohort. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 60, 709–717 (2003).
Copeland, W., Shanahan, L., Costello, E. J. & Angold, A. Cumulative prevalence of psychiatric disorders by young adulthood: a prospective cohort analysis from the Great Smoky Mountains Study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 50, 252–261 (2011).
Kessler, R. C. et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 62, 593–602 (2005).
Solmi, M. et al. Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Mol. Psychiatry 27, 281–295 (2022).
Erskine, H. E. et al. A heavy burden on young minds: the global burden of mental and substance use disorders in children and youth. Psychol. Med. 45, 1551–1563 (2015).
Polanczyk, G. V., Salum, G. A., Sugaya, L. S., Caye, A. & Rohde, L. A. Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 56, 345–365 (2015).
Pat, N. et al. Motivation and cognitive abilities as mediators between polygenic scores and psychopathology in children. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 61, 782–795.e3 (2022).
Romer, A. L. & Pizzagalli, D. A. Is executive dysfunction a risk marker or consequence of psychopathology? A test of executive function as a prospective predictor and outcome of general psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study®. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 51, 100994 (2021).
Thompson, W. K. et al. The structure of cognition in 9 and 10 year-old children and associations with problem behaviors: findings from the ABCD study’s baseline neurocognitive battery. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 36, 100606 (2019).
Huber, R. S., Sheth, C., Renshaw, P. F., Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. & McGlade, E. C. Suicide ideation and neurocognition among 9- and 10-year old children in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Arch. Suicide Res. 26, 641–655 (2022).
Blanken, L. M. E. et al. Cognitive functioning in children with internalising, externalising and dysregulation problems: a population-based study. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 26, 445–456 (2017).
Weiser, M. et al. Cognitive performance of male adolescents is lower than controls across psychiatric disorders: a population-based study. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 110, 471–475 (2004).
Elias, L. R. et al. Cognitive impairment in euthymic pediatric bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 56, 286–296 (2017).
Horn, K., Roessner, V. & Holtmann, M. Neurocognitive performance in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder: a review. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 20, 433–450 (2011).
Frangou, S. Neurocognition in early-onset schizophrenia. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 22, 715–726 (2013).
Frazier, T. W., Demaree, H. A. & Youngstrom, E. A. Meta-analysis of intellectual and neuropsychological test performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology 18, 543–555 (2004).
Posner, J., Polanczyk, G. V. & Sonuga-Barke, E. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet 395, 450–462 (2020).
Weyandt, L. L. & Gudmundsdottir, B. G. in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment 4th edn (ed. Barkley, R. A.) 116–139 (The Guilford Press, 2015).
Posner, J. et al. Dissociable attentional and affective circuits in medication-naïve children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res. 213, 24–30 (2013).
Ramos, A. A., Hamdan, A. C. & Machado, L. A meta-analysis on verbal working memory in children and adolescents with ADHD. Clin. Neuropsychol. 34, 873–898 (2020).
Reville, M. C., O’Connor, L. & Frampton, I. Literature review of cognitive neuroscience and anorexia nervosa. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 18, 18 (2016).
Allott, K., Fisher, C. A., Amminger, G. P., Goodall, J. & Hetrick, S. Characterizing neurocognitive impairment in young people with major depression: state, trait, or scar? Brain Behav. 6, e00527 (2016).
Williams, L. M. et al. Using brain-based cognitive measures to support clinical decisions in ADHD. Pediatr. Neurol. 42, 118–126 (2010).
Clarke, S. D. et al. Distinguishing symptom profiles in adolescent ADHD using an objective cognitive test battery. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 19, 355–367 (2007).
Williams, L. M. et al. General and social cognition in first episode schizophrenia: identification of separable factors and prediction of functional outcome using the IntegNeuro test battery. Schizophr. Res. 99, 182–191 (2008).
Kozlowska, K., Scher, S. & Williams, L. M. Patterns of emotional-cognitive functioning in pediatric conversion patients: implications for the conceptualization of conversion disorders. Psychosom. Med. 73, 775–788 (2011).
Andreou, G. & Trott, K. Verbal fluency in adults diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in childhood. Atten. Defic. Hyperact. Disord. 5, 343–351 (2013).
Maoz, H., Aviram, S., Nitzan, U., Segev, A. & Bloch, Y. Association between continuous performance and response inhibition tests in adults with ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 22, 293–299 (2018).
Schoechlin, C. & Engel, R. R. Neuropsychological performance in adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of empirical data. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 20, 727–744 (2005).
Skodzik, T., Holling, H. & Pedersen, A. Long-term memory performance in adult ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 21, 267–283 (2017).
Corcoran, C. et al. Olfactory deficits, cognition and negative symptoms in early onset psychosis. Schizophr. Res. 80, 283–293 (2005).
Seidman, L. J. et al. Sex differences in olfactory identification and Wisconsin Card Sorting performance in schizophrenia: relationship to attention and verbal ability. Biol. Psychiatry 42, 104–115 (1997).
Kumra, S. et al. Neuropsychological deficits in pediatric patients with childhood-onset schizophrenia and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. Schizophr. Res. 42, 135–144 (2000).
Rajji, T. K., Ismail, Z. & Mulsant, B. H. Age at onset and cognition in schizophrenia: meta-analysis. Br. J. Psychiatry 195, 286–293 (2009).
Smelror, R. E. et al. Cognitive impairment profile in adolescent early-onset psychosis using the MATRICS battery: age and sex effects. Neuropsychology 35, 300–309 (2021).
Bombin, I. et al. Neuropsychological evidence for abnormal neurodevelopment associated with early-onset psychoses. Psychol. Med. 43, 757–768 (2013).
Addington, J., Saeedi, H. & Addington, D. The course of cognitive functioning in first episode psychosis: changes over time and impact on outcome. Schizophr. Res. 78, 35–43 (2005).
Heaton, R. K. et al. Stability and course of neuropsychological deficits in schizophrenia. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, 24–32 (2001).
Szöke, A. et al. Longitudinal studies of cognition in schizophrenia: meta-analysis. Br. J. Psychiatry 192, 248–257 (2008).
Brown, L. B., Nicholson, T. R., Aybek, S., Kanaan, R. A. & David, A. S. Neuropsychological function and memory suppression in conversion disorder. J. Neuropsychol. 8, 171–185 (2014).
Vita, A. et al. Effectiveness, core elements, and moderators of response of cognitive remediation for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry 78, 848–858 (2021).
Hack, L. M. et al. A cognitive biotype of depression and symptoms, behavior measures, neural circuits, and differential treatment outcomes: a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2318411 (2023).
Gur, R. C. et al. A cognitive neuroscience based computerized battery for efficient measurement of individual differences: standardization and initial construct validation. J. Neurosci. Methods 187, 254–262 (2010).
Marek, S. et al. Identifying reproducible individual differences in childhood functional brain networks: an ABCD study. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 40, 100706 (2019).
Wang, C., Hayes, R., Roeder, K., & Jalbrzikowski, M. Neurobiological clusters are associated with trajectories of overall psychopathology in youth. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2023.04.007 (2023).
Mills, B. D. et al. ADHD and attentional control: impaired segregation of task positive and task negative brain networks. Netw. Neurosci. 2, 200–217 (2018).
Sheffield, J. M., Rogers, B. P., Blackford, J. U., Heckers, S. & Woodward, N. D. Accelerated aging of functional brain networks supporting cognitive function in psychotic disorders. Biol. Psychiatry 86, 240–248 (2019).
Biezonski, D., Cha, J., Steinglass, J. & Posner, J. Evidence for thalamocortical circuit abnormalities and associated cognitive dysfunctions in underweight individuals with anorexia nervosa. Neuropsychopharmacology 41, 1560–1568 (2016).
Datasets. Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness https://www.stanfordpmhw.com/datasets (2021).
Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D. & Epstein, J. N. The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 26, 257–268 (1998).
Kay, S. R., Opler, L. A., & Lindenmayer, J. P. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): rationale and standardisation. Br. J. Psychiatry Suppl. 7, 59–67 (1989).
Williams, L. M. et al. The test-retest reliability of a standardized neurocognitive and neurophysiological test battery: ‘neuromarker’. Int. J. Neurosci. 115, 1605–1630 (2005).
Rowe, D. L. et al. Brain structure and function correlates of general and social cognition. J. Integr. Neurosci. 6, 35–74 (2007).
Clark, C. R. et al. Standardized assessment of cognitive functioning during development and aging using an automated touchscreen battery. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 21, 449–467 (2006).
Tozzi, L. cognition_minors_2023. GitHub https://github.com/leotozzi88/cognition_minors_2023 (2023).
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our appreciation to the participants in the studies from which source data are drawn. The data are drawn from Stanford BrainNet, which includes data acquired with support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (project grant 1004822 to L.M.W. and A.H.; project grant 457424 to L.M.W., S.C. and M.R.K.) and Australian Research Council (Discovery Projects DP120104496, DP077394 and DP0345481 to L.M.W.), and a Pfizer Foundation Senior Research Fellowship (L.M.W.). We acknowledge the support of the Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation, which allowed us to analyze cognitive profiles in young individuals experiencing mental health disorders.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
K.K., M.R.K., A.H. and S.C. were a part of original data collection for the study. S.N., L.T., R.A.H. and L.M.W. developed the study. L.T. and R.A.H. performed the data analysis. L.M.W., S.N., L.T. and R.A.H. wrote the manuscript, and all authors (S.N., L.T., R.A.H., L.M.W., K.K., M.R.K. and S.C.) reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
A.H. has received consultancy fees from Lundbeck Australia and Seqirus. He has received payments for educational sessions run for Lundbeck Australia and Servier. He has developed educational material for Servier. He is the recipient of an investigator-initiated grant from the Balnaves Foundation and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. He is an investigator on an industry-sponsored trial by Alto Neuroscience. He is the recipient of funding from the Australian Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He has received philanthropic funding from the Balnaves Foundation. He is the chair of One Door Mental Health. L.M.W. declares US patent applications 10/034,645 and 15/820,338: systems and methods for detecting complex networks in MRI image data. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The institutional review board approved the protocols of the studies that contributed source data. A study coordinator thoroughly explained the protocol to participants and answered any questions before they provided written informed consent to begin the study. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Mental Health thanks Ruben Gur and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information
Supplementary information, methods, Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–4.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hilton, R.A., Tozzi, L., Nesamoney, S. et al. Transdiagnostic neurocognitive dysfunction in children and adolescents with mental illness. Nat. Mental Health 2, 299–309 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00199-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00199-6
- Springer Nature America, Inc.