MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain Morphometric Biomarkers Distinguishing Unipolar and Bipolar Depression

2014· article· en· W2005648405 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsBipolar disorderNeuroimagingVoxelMagnetic resonance imagingWhite matterPsychologyMultivariate statisticsDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatryNuclear medicineCognitionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The structural abnormalities in the brain that accurately differentiate unipolar depression (UD) and bipolar depression (BD) remain unidentified. OBJECTIVES: First, to investigate and compare morphometric changes in UD and BD, and to replicate the findings at 2 independent neuroimaging sites; second, to differentiate UD and BD using multivariate pattern classification techniques. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a 2-center cross-sectional study, structural gray matter data were obtained at 2 independent sites (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Münster, Germany) using 3-T magnetic resonance imaging. Voxel-based morphometry was used to compare local gray and white matter volumes, and a novel pattern classification approach was used to discriminate between UD and BD, while training the classifier at one imaging site and testing in an independent sample at the other site. The Pittsburgh sample of participants was recruited from the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh from 2008 to 2012. The Münster sample was recruited from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Münster from 2010 to 2012. Equally divided between the 2 sites were 58 currently depressed patients with bipolar I disorder, 58 age- and sex-matched unipolar depressed patients, and 58 matched healthy controls. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Magnetic resonance imaging was used to detect structural differences between groups. Morphometric analyses were applied using voxel-based morphometry. Pattern classification techniques were used for a multivariate approach. RESULTS: At both sites, individuals with BD showed reduced gray matter volumes in the hippocampal formation and the amygdala relative to individuals with UD (Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates x = -22, y = -1, z = 20; k = 1938 voxels; t = 4.75), whereas individuals with UD showed reduced gray matter volumes in the anterior cingulate gyrus compared with individuals with BD (Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates x = -8, y = 32, z = 3; k = 979 voxels; t = 6.37; all corrected P < .05). Reductions in white matter volume within the cerebellum and hippocampus were found in individuals with BD. Pattern classification yielded up to 79.3% accuracy (P < .001) by differentiating the 2 depressed groups, training and testing the classifier at one site, and up to 69.0% accuracy (P < .001), training the classifier at one imaging site (Pittsburgh) and testing it at the other independent sample (Münster). Medication load did not alter the pattern of results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Individuals with UD and those with BD are differentiated by structural abnormalities in neural regions supporting emotion processing. Neuroimaging and multivariate pattern classification techniques are promising tools to differentiate UD from BD and show promise as future diagnostic aids.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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