MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026544098 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20400

Individual variation in neural correlates of sadness in children: A twin fMRI study

2007· article· en· W2026544098 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Côté, Mario Beauregard, Alain Girard, Boualem Mensour, Adham Mancini-Marı̈e, Daniel Pérusse

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSadnessPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingPrefrontal cortexFunctional neuroimagingVariation (astronomy)Depression (economics)NeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyAngerClinical psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional neuroimaging studies show substantial individual variation in brain activation accompanying the experience of emotion, including sadness. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in 104 pairs of 8-year-old twins (47 MZ, 57 DZ) to assess genetic-environmental contributions to individual differences in neural activation in two prefrontal cortex (PFC) areas previously shown to be involved in sadness. No genetic effects were found for any area, individual environmental factors entirely accounting for individual variation in brain activation related to sadness. Sadness being the prevailing mood in depression, these findings may be of relevance to the etiology of childhood depressive disorders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207