Back

Electrophysiologically-defined excitation-inhibition autism neurosubtypes

Bertelsen, N.; Vitale, A.; Bolis, D.; Mandelli, V.; Lombardo, M. V.

2023-11-23 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2023.11.22.23298729 medRxiv
Show abstract

Excitation-inhibition (E:I) imbalance has long been considered one of the primary neurobiological theories explaining autism. However, the theory has been bolstered heavily by research on high-penetrance genetic mechanisms which are only found in a small proportion of the autism population and can manifest with potentially different directionality. How well does E:I imbalance explain idiopathic autistic males and does such E:I imbalance manifest in one particular direction? Answering this question in human patients necessitates a need for validated tools that allow for inference about E:I balance from non-invasively measured in-vivo electrophysiological (EEG, LFP) time-series data. Predictions from in-silico modelling alongside in-vivo validations from mouse electrophysiological data show that alterations of synaptic E:I balance cause changes in fractal long memory characteristics of the neural time-series that are captured with a metric known as the Hurst exponent (H). H estimated in resting state EEG data of idiopathic autistic males allows us to discover two distinct E:I neurosubtypes that generalize at high levels (>92% accuracy) in independent data. Each autism neurosubtype captures approximately half of the sample and each can be described by opposing patterns of E:I imbalance relative to a typically-developing (TD) comparison group. Autism E:I neurosubtypes also show differential relationships between H and behavioral and demographic variables consisting of age, intelligence, and autism symptomatology. This work establishes causal evidence for interpreting changes in EEG-derived H as an E:I-relevant biomarker and suggests that idiopathic autistic males can be characterized by opposing types of E:I imbalance with differential phenotypic relevance.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.