Subcallosal Cingulate Connectivity in Anorexia Nervosa Patients Differs From Healthy Controls: A Multi-tensor Tractography Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa is characterized by extreme low body weight and alterations in affective processing. The subcallosal cingulate regulates affect through wide-spread white matter connections and is implicated in the pathophysiology of anorexia nervosa. OBJECTIVES: We examined whether those with treatment refractory anorexia nervosa undergoing deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subcallosal white matter (SCC) show: (1) altered anatomical SCC connectivity compared to healthy controls, (2) white matter microstructural changes, and (3) microstructural changes associated with clinically-measured affect. METHODS: Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) and deterministic multi-tensor tractography were used to compare anatomical connectivity and microstructure in SCC-associated white matter tracts. Eight women with treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa were compared to 8 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Anorexia nervosa patients also completed affect-related clinical assessments presurgically and 12 months post-surgery. RESULTS: (1) Higher (e.g., left parieto-occipital cortices) and lower (e.g., thalamus) connectivity in those with anorexia nervosa compared to controls. (2) Decreases in fractional anisotropy, and alterations in axial and radial diffusivities, in the left fornix crus, anterior limb of the internal capsule (ALIC), right anterior cingulum and left inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus. (3) Correlations between dMRI metrics and clinical assessments, such as low pre-surgical left fornix and right ALIC fractional anisotropy being related to post-DBS improvements in quality-of-life and depressive symptoms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified widely-distributed differences in SCC connectivity in anorexia nervosa patients consistent with heterogenous clinical disruptions, although these results should be considered with caution given the low number of subjects. Future studies should further explore the use of affect-related connectivity and behavioral assessments to assist with DBS target selection and treatment outcome.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".