Psychiatry, as a field, lacks objective markers for diagnosis, progression, treatment planning, and prognosis, in part due to difficulties studying the brain in vivo , and diagnoses are based on self-reported symptoms and observation of patient behavior and cognition. Rapid advances in brain imaging techniques allow clinical investigators to noninvasively quantify brain features at the structural, functional, and molecular levels. Psychoradiology is an emerging discipline at the intersection of psychiatry and radiology. Psychoradiology applies medical imaging technologies to psychiatry and promises not only to improve insight into structural and functional brain abnormalities in patients with psychiatric disorders but also to have potential clinical utility. We searched for representative studies related to recent advances in psychoradiology through May 1, 2022, and conducted a selective review of 165 references, including 75 research articles. We summarize the novel dynamic imaging processing methods to model brain networks and present imaging genetics studies that reveal the relationship between various neuroimaging endophenotypes and genetic markers in psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, we survey recent advances in psychoradiology, with a focus on future psychiatric diagnostic approaches with dimensional analysis and a shift from group-level to individualized analysis. Finally, we examine the application of machine learning in psychoradiology studies and the potential of a novel option for brain stimulation treatment based on psychoradiological findings in precision medicine. Here, we provide a summary of recent advances in psychoradiology research, and we hope this review will help guide the practice of psychoradiology in the scientific and clinical fields.

Objective: To compare the type and degree of impulsivity among adolescents with bipolar disorder (BD), adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and healthy comparison subjects using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Version 11 (BIS-11). Methods: Manic adolescents with BD ( n =31), adolescents with ADHD ( n =30), and healthy subjects ( n =25) completed the BIS-11, a 30-item, self-report scale with three subscales (cognitive, motor, and nonplanning). The BIS-11 total and subscale scores were compared among groups. We also examined associations among the BIS-11, Young Mania Rating Scale and co-occurring disruptive behavioral disorders (DBDs) within the BD group. Results: Total and each subscale scores were significantly higher for the BD group than for the healthy controls ( p <0.05). The total scores and the cognitive and motor subscale scores were significantly higher for the ADHD group than for the healthy control group ( p 0.05). There were no significant differences between the BD and ADHD groups or between the BD groups with and without ADHD. The BD patients with DBDs (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder) scored significantly higher on the motor subscale than did BD patients without DBDs. There were no statistically significant associations between the Young Mania Rating Scale and BIS-11 scores within the BD group. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that impulsivity is elevated in adolescents with BD as well as adolescents with ADHD, except for nonplanning impulsivity, which was not significantly different between adolescents with ADHD and the healthy comparison group. This may suggest that nonplanning impulsivity is relatively specific to adolescents with BD. Additionally, our data indicate that elevations in impulsivity, as measured by the BIS-11, may be independent of symptoms severity and, therefore, may be a stable, trait-related component of BD.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). After 4 weeks of single-blind lead-in treatment with a Brief Psychosocial Intervention (BPI) plus placebo, patients (aged 12-17 years) with MDD (DSM-5) who did not meet response criteria (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R]; total score ≥40 plus 2) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 8 weeks of BPI plus double-blind treatment with vortioxetine 10 mg, vortioxetine 20 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from randomization in CDRS-R total score at week 8; the primary comparison was the average effect of 2 vortioxetine doses vs placebo. Of 784 patients enrolled in the lead-in, 616 were randomized. At week 8, the mean change in CDRS-R total score averaged for vortioxetine doses was -18.01 (SE = 0.98) and the mean difference vs placebo was 0.21 (P = .878; not significant). For fluoxetine, the mean change in CDRS-R total score was -21.95 and the mean difference vs placebo was -3.73 (P = .015). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in ≥5% of patients in either vortioxetine arm and at least twice more frequently than placebo were nausea, headache, vomiting, and dizziness. Patients in all groups showed reduction in CDRS-R scores by the end of the study, with no difference between combined doses of vortioxetine and placebo. The primary endpoint was not met, thereby rendering the study negative. The overall favorable safety profile of vortioxetine in an adolescent patient population was consistent with that seen in adults. Active Reference (Fluoxetine) Fixed-Dose Study of Vortioxetine in Paediatric Patients Aged 12 to 17 Years With Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02709746.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled flexible-dose, parallel group trial was conducted at 26 clinical investigational sites in the United States to examine the safety and efficacy of the selegiline transdermal system (STS) (EMSAM®) in adolescents (ages 12-17 years) meeting American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) criteria for moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) without psychotic features. Adolescents (n=308) with moderate to severe MDD were randomized to either STS (n=152) or placebo (n=156). Two hundred and fifteen (69.8%) subjects completed the study and 17 (5.5%) reported discontinuation because of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy outcome measure was the mean change from baseline to end of study (week 12 last observation carried forward [LOCF]) in the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score. Secondary outcome measures included end-point Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S) and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement (CGI-I). Patients on STS or placebo had a significant decline from baseline (p<0.001) on their CDRS-R total score with mean reductions±SD as follows: STS 21.4±16.6; placebo 21.5±16.5. Both groups had similar response rates (58.6% vs. 59.3%) defined as CGI-I of 1 or 2 at study end. However, these between-group efficacy findings were without statistical significance. The overall incidence of reported AEs was 62.5% for STS-treated patients and 57.7% for placebo-treated patients. Most commonly reported AEs in STS or placebo groups were application site reactions (STS=24.3%; placebo=21.8%), headache (STS=17.1%; placebo=16.7%), and nausea (STS=7.2%; placebo=7.7%). Treatment groups did not differ on any laboratory parameters, vital signs, or electrocardiogram (ECG) findings. No suspected hypertensive crises were reported in the trial. These data demonstrated that the STS was safe and well tolerated in this adolescent sample. However, both STS-treated and placebo-treated subjects demonstrated a decline from baseline in depressive symptoms (CDRS-R total score) over the length of the study, without statistical superiority by either group.