Systematic review investigates neuroimaging-derived subtypes in schizophrenia, indicating limited clinical associations.
Background: Efforts to define biologically grounded subtypes of schizophrenia have increasingly leveraged neuroimaging data and clustering algorithms. Such approaches aim to capture patient-level heterogeneity with potential clinical and mechanistic relevance. This review evaluates whether structural neuroimaging-derived subtypes can be robustly identified and meaningfully linked to clinical variation. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed studies published between January 2015 and December 2024 that applied data-driven clustering algorithms to neuroimaging data to identify patient-level subtypes of individuals with schizophrenia or related spectrum disorders. Transdiagnostic studies and those focusing solely on case-control classification, or on feature-level clustering without individual-level subtype assignment, were excluded. Results: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. Most used structural MRI, but input features and clustering algorithms varied widely. Across studies, three broad neuroanatomical patterns were described: subtypes with widespread reductions in brain structure, those with regionally circumscribed abnormalities, and those with largely preserved profiles. However, the specific brain regions implicated within each category varied considerably between studies, and no subtype profile was consistently reproduced. Subtypes were not reliably associated with clinical features although there was a trend for higher clinical burden for the widespread subtypes. Conclusions: Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether macroscale neuroimaging features can define subtypes of schizophrenia that are biologically valid or clinically meaningful. Given the limited and inconsistent findings, the subtypes reported to date may reflect continuous variation within the disorder rather than discrete, biologically distinct entities. Advancing the field will require larger, harmonized datasets, standardized analytic pipelines, and rigorous external and longitudinal validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: