Mapping vulnerability to bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although early interventions in individuals with bipolar disorder may reduce the associated personal and economic burden, the neurobiologic markers of enhanced risk are unknown. METHODS: Neuroimaging studies involving individuals at enhanced genetic risk for bipolar disorder (HR) were included in a systematic review. We then performed a region of interest (ROI) analysis and a whole-brain meta-analysis combined with a formal effect-sizes meta-analysis in a subset of studies. RESULTS: There were 37 studies included in our systematic review. The overall sample for the systematic review included 1258 controls and 996 HR individuals. No significant differences were detected between HR individuals and controls in the selected ROIs: striatum, amygdala, hippocampus, pituitary and frontal lobe. The HR group showed increased grey matter volume compared with patients with established bipolar disorder. The HR individuals showed increased neural response in the left superior frontal gyrus, medial frontal gyrus and left insula compared with controls, independent from the functional magnetic resonance imaging task used. There were no publication biases. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results. LIMITATIONS: As the included studies were cross-sectional, it remains to be determined whether the observed neurofunctional and structural alterations represent risk factors that can be clinically used in preventive interventions for prodromal bipolar disorder. CONCLUSION: Accumulating structural and functional imaging evidence supports the existence of neurobiologic trait abnormalities in individuals at genetic risk for bipolar disorder at various scales of investigation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".