Back

Heterogeneity of Brain Dynamics in Genetic and Psychiatric Conditions

Dubois, A. E. E.; Lippe, S.; Martin, C.-O.; Knoth, I. S.; Fontaine, V. K.; belanger, A.-M.; Abadie, P.; Carter, M. T.; Couture, M.; Elsabbagh, M.; Evans, A.; Ernst, C.; Forgeot d'Arc, B.; Joober, R.; Rouleau, G.; Scorah, J.; Tardif, C. L.; Zawati, M. H.; Westerkamp, G. C.; Pedapati, E.; Erickson, C.; Rodriguez-Herreros, B.; Chabane, N.; Latreche, K.; Schaer, M.; Lefebvre, A.; Delorme, R.; Webb, S. J.; McPartland, J.; Jacquemont, S.; Dumas, G.

2026-09-08 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.01.748394 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Whether the heterogeneity of psychiatric conditions converges on shared neurophysiological alterations or translates into distinct signatures remains unclear. We assembled high-density electroencephalogram (hd-EEG) resting-state recordings from 4,812 individuals aged 5 months to 66 years across 11 psychiatric conditions, a broad spectrum of rare genetic variants, and typically developing (TD) individuals. We established normative developmental trajectories of source-space EEG across spectral organization, connectivity, and signal complexity. Psychiatric conditions showed small deviations, revealing a shared transdiagnostic profile. In contrast, single rare variants showed substantially larger, distinct and sometimes mirror-opposite signatures that collapsed toward the psychiatric profile when pooled. Autism Spectrum Disorder showed some of the smallest group-level effects yet the largest individual deviations, indicating substantial but directionally inconsistent alterations. EEG deviations followed a cortical gradient, with larger effects in sensorimotor regions. We demonstrate that sample sizes in the hundreds are required for robust associations with psychiatric diagnoses. This interactive open resource provides normative scores to benchmark future results.

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.