MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W171690111 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0717

An event-related functional MRI study of working memory in euthymic bipolar disorder

2007· article· en· W171690111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim Lagopoulos, Belinda Ivanovski, Gin S. Malhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderPsychologyEvent-related potentialWorking memoryNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder (BD) is emerging as an illness marred by neurocognitive deficits, many of which do not resolve on recovery. Deficits affecting working memory (WM) in particular appear to be significant. WM comprises temporally separated biological processes that involve the on-line retention and manipulation of information. Previous neuroimaging studies have not sought to dissect the individual contributions of WM and examined WM subprocesses in euthymic BD. In this study, we investigated the encode, delay and response components of WM to identify the neural substrates and respective contributions to the WM deficits found in BD. METHODS: We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging and a parametric WM task, incorporating 3 load conditions, to delineate individual WM subprocesses in 10 euthymic BD patients and 10 control subjects. RESULTS: Patients exhibited attenuated patterns of activity, predominantly in frontal brain regions, across all WM components. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the attenuated activity observed in the patients, the clinical deficits in WM found in BD may reflect broad fronto-cortico-limbic dysfunction that is not confined to any single WM component. This is important in understanding the pathophysiology of BD and for future studies on executive functions in patients with this illness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207