English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

After several decades of moderate pessimism about the enter prise of developing novel therapeutic interventions for neuropsychiatric disorders, there has been recent progress toward the use of new treatment methods. For example, there is good reason to be optimistic given the efficacy of ket­ amine administration and brain stimulation techniques in the context of patients with depression for whom the right treat­ ment has yet to be identified.1–4 However, despite this pro­ gress, there is still a long way to go, and our group posits that the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques may play an important role in the continuing development and refinement of therapeutic strategies. Though this has been a popu lar notion for some time, MRI­ based techniques that index measures of brain structure and function have often been criticized for their inability to be used as a clinically relevant biomarker for diagnosis, treat­ ment design, or the evaluation of treatment efficacy. At pres­ ent, the nosology across all neuropsychiatric illness subtypes is typically not defined by biomarker­based criteria, but rather by clinical observations that are then used to create clinical definitions (e.g., patients with schizophrenia for whom the right treatment has yet to be identified). While it is tempting to search for a HbA1c­like biomarker (used to diag­ nose diabetes) for the clinical staging, prognostication and prediction of illness onset for neuropsychiatric illnesses, it is noteworthy that neurobiological features may interact across indices describing genetics and brain circuits. In keeping with this ideology, most neuroimaging work can be charac­ terized as single­modality studies: studies that investigate a single neuroimaging modality (e.g., structural MRI only) in a given sample at a single time point, despite possibly collect­ ing multiple contrasts. While these works are undoubtedly useful and help to build a picture of illness pathophysiology, multimodal studies, which assess multiple neuroimaging modalities in the same population, have the potential to pro­ vide more comprehensive data that may be analyzed to iden­ tify biomarkers. Notably, previous research has shown how both structural and functional MRI can be used as a means to refine brain stimulation approaches.5,6 Also, there is emerging consensus that neuropsychiatric disorders affect brain circuits and net­ works.7,8 Importantly, many of these discoveries have enabled the development of the therapeutic treatments described above. The purpose of this editorial is to argue that, increas­ ingly, we need to move away from single­modality studies and move toward the integration of multiple modalities in the context of neuroimaging studies if we are to develop robust signatures of brain function and dysfunction that are indica­ tive of neuropsychiatric illness and its underlying complexity.

Seeing the bigger picture: multimodal neuroimaging to investigate neuropsychiatric illnesses