Figure 3. Subtyping psychiatric patients according to quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) profile. A cluster analysis on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) revealed two distinct clusters (Figure 4). 5,6 While the patients could be identified by qEEG as OCD, they clustered into two groupings. Being able to cluster individuals has no meaning if the cluster is not related to something useful. The question was, do these clusters differ

in some clinically Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical meaningful fashion? It turned out that members of cluster 1 were predominantly nonresponders to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), while members of cluster 2 were predominantly responders to SSRIs. These rates of response and nonresponse of approximately 80% are astonishing, especially given the fact that Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the data were derived

from the scalp and not from the actual source of the abnormality. Three-dimensional source localization via variable resolution electrical tomography (VARETA) or magnetoencephalography would undoubtedly yield results that are more refined. Figure 4. Cluster analysis of quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) data in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Figure 5 shows differences between positron emission tomography (PET) images in OCD responders to SSRI treatment at baseline and after successful treatment with SSRI.7 The localization of the metabolic changes was consistent Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical with the RRG source localization of the abnormal activity. Figure 5. Positron emission tomography (PET) in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) responders (n=20) Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment: comparisons between drug-free baseline and retest. AC, anterior cingulate. A similar clustering algorithm was utilized for patients selleck chemical suffering from attention-deficit disorder (ADD). The cohort, of ADD cases was divided into two clusters: 76% of cluster 1 responded to methylphenidate, whereas 62% of cluster 2 responded better to dextroamphetamine (Table I). In other words, despite the total similarity of these cases clinically, the

differential response to methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical was determined to a large extent by the distinctive pathophysiology revealed by cluster membership. Again, this cluster membership was determined by the scalp signal and not based on three-dimensional source localization (Figure 6). Figure 6. Group average topographic Z maps of quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) clusters within the attention-deficit disorder almost (ADD) population. Table I. Relationship between quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) cluster membership and response to treatment in children with attention-deficient disorder. VARETA images were computed at the qEEG frequencies where the most significant changes occurred. Figure 7 shows VARETA images taken at 6.63 Hz on dextroamphetamine responders before and after medication. One can sec the obvious normalization with medication. Figure 7.