Dissecting the heterogeneous subcortical brain volume of autism spectrum disorder using community detection

Structural brain alterations in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are heterogeneous, with limited effect sizes overall. In this study, we aimed to identify subgroups in ASD, based on neuroanatomical profiles; we hypothesized that the effect sizes for case/control differences would be increased in the newly defined subgroups. Analyzing a large data set from the ENIGMA‐ASD working group (n = 2661), we applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to seven subcortical volumes of individuals with and without ASD to uncover the underlying organization of subcortical structures. Based on earlier findings and data availability, we focused on three age groups: boys (<=14 years), male adolescents (15–22 years), and adult men (> = 22 years). The resulting factor scores were used in a community detection (CD) analysis to cluster participants into subgroups. Three factors were found in each subsample; the factor structure in adult men differed from that in boys and male adolescents. From these factors, CD uncovered four distinct communities in boys and three communities in adolescents and adult men, irrespective of ASD diagnosis. The effect sizes for case/control comparisons were more pronounced than in the combined sample, for some communities. A significant group difference in ADOS scores between communities was observed in boys and male adolescents with ASD. We succeeded in stratifying participants into more homogeneous subgroups based on subcortical brain volumes. This stratification enhanced our ability to observe case/control differences in subcortical brain volumes in ASD, and may help to explain the heterogeneity of previous findings in ASD. LAY SUMMARY: Structural brain alterations in ASD are heterogeneous, with overall limited effect sizes. Here we aimed to identify subgroups in ASD based on neuroimaging measures. We tested whether the effect sizes for case/control differences would be increased in the newly defined subgroups. Based on neuroanatomical profiles, we succeeded in stratifying our participants into more homogeneous subgroups. The effect sizes of case/control differences were more pronounced in some subgroups than those in the whole sample.