A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some, although not all, studies report small hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) relative to healthy controls. Here, we explore the contribution of key demographic and clinical variables to this difference. METHODS: We used meta-analytic techniques to provide an updated analysis of data from 32 magnetic resonance imaging studies of hippocampal volume in patients with MDD. RESULTS: Our analysis confirmed the difference in hippocampal volume, but only among patients with MDD whose duration of illness was longer than 2 years or who had more than 1 disease episode. We found no such effect in studies that included patients who did not fit these criteria. The effect was limited to children and middle-aged or older adults. Analyzed collectively, studies including young adult patients showed equivalent hippocampal volumes across MDD patients and controls, a result that may be attributable to a reduced burden of illness in this population. Age at onset of disease, severity of depression at the time of scanning, sex and slice thickness did not contribute to differences in hippocampal volume between patients with MDD and controls. LIMITATIONS: The small size of many of the clinical and demographic subgroups may have limited statistical power to detect between-group differences. CONCLUSION: Although all studies were cross-sectional, our results suggest that hippocampal volume reductions generally occur after disease onset in patients with MDD. These findings have implications for the timing of clinical interventions aimed at reducing the impact of MDD on neuronal structure and function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it