Right and Left Medial Orbitofrontal Volumes Show an Opposite Relationship to Agreeableness in FTD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent investigations of the neuroanatomy of complex social behaviors suggest that the underlying brain circuits involve multiple cortical and subcortical structures. The neuroanatomic origins of agreeableness have not yet been clearly elucidated. However, frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients can evidence dramatic alterations in agreeableness arising from frontal and temporal lobe damage. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that agreeableness would be negatively correlated with left medial orbitofrontal cortex size and positively correlated with right amygdala volume. First-degree relatives of 27 FTD patients (diagnosed according to the Lund-Manchester criteria) were asked to fill out the NEO-Five Factor Inventory to assess the patients' current level of agreeableness, a construct comprised of the facets trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. These patients underwent T(1)-weighted MRI imaging, and gray matter volumes for right and left orbitofrontal lobes and amygdalas were derived via segmentation and region of interest tracing, normalizing for total intracranial volume. Regression analysis revealed that 38% of the variance in the NEO agreeableness score was predicted by a model in which right orbitofrontal volume (beta = 0.731) was positively correlated with agreeableness, and left orbitofrontal lobe volume (beta = -0.638) was negatively correlated with agreeableness (p < 0.01). Contrary to our hypothesis, amygdala volume did not significantly predict agreeableness. This finding partly replicates a previous study that used a different measure of social functioning, the Interpersonal Adjective Scale, to delineate a left frontal-right amygdala circuit for agreeableness. These data support the hypothesis that regulation of agreeableness arises from a balanced, mutually inhibitory circuit involving both hemispheres.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".