MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W177567891 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0720

Neuron somal size is decreased in the lateral amygdalar nucleus of subjects with bipolar disorder

2007· article· en· W177567891 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yarema Bezchlibnyk, Xiujun Sun, Junfeng Wang, Glenda MacQueen, Bruce S. McEwen, L. Trevor Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceNucleusBipolar disorderPsychologyAmygdalaCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Morphometric studies of postmortem brains from subjects with mood disorders have reported altered density of glial cells in the amygdala; however, the nuclear regions have not been examined individually. METHODS: We assessed the size and density of both neuronal and glial cells in discrete amygdalar nuclei in postmortem sections from subjects with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia and from nonpsychiatric control subjects. Three adjacent Nissl-stained sections were examined from each individual. RESULTS: We report significantly decreased neuron somal size in the lateral amygdalar nucleus (LAN) and the accessory basal parvocellular nucleus (ABPC) in subjects with BD, relative to control subjects. These changes in cellular morphology were most prominent in the LAN in sections obtained from the left hemisphere. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to increasing evidence for neuropathological changes in the amygdala of subjects with BD and specifically implicate the LAN and ABPC in this disorder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations61
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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