MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068927384 · doi:10.1093/brain/awu199

Reply: Occipital bending in depression

2014· letter· en· W2068927384 on OpenAlexaff
Jerome J. Maller, Richard H. Thomson, Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld, Rodney Anderson, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Paul B. Fitzgerald

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccipital lobePsychologyDepression (economics)Focus (optics)NeurosciencePsychiatryPsychoanalysisMedicinePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We thank Professor Siebert for this comment and interest in our recent article regarding occipital bending in depression. The focus of our article was to investigate the prevalence of occipital bending in this patient group relative to control subjects, and our findings suggest that this is separate to previous findings of asymmetry or cortical thinning in the occipital lobe (Peterson et al., 2009). We hypothesized that incomplete neural pruning may lead to the cranial space available for brain growth being restricted, or ventricular enlargement observed in depression (Kempton et al., 2011). This compresses the brain and causes torque and curvature around the other occipital lobe. The variation in skull base and vascular anatomy in this region is interesting in the context of our findings of the prevalence of occipital torque. Indeed, the more frequent right transverse sinus draining the superior sagittal sinus (Saiki et al., 2013) results in displacement of the interhemispheric cleft and occipital bending. Although rare, there are cases reported of depression being associated with irregularities in the transverse-sigmoid sinus or superior sagittal sinus anatomy (Katz et al., 2003; Nakagawa et al., 2012). The question therefore arises as to the precursor of this difference between our study groups in terms of skull base anatomy and vasculature. For example, it has been shown that significant relative enlargement of the supratentorial volume during development, relative to infratentorial volume, is accompanied by a rotation of the midline section of the tentorium towards the posterior cranial base (Erdoglija, 1989). Jeffrey (2002) also found that increases of supratentorial volume relative to infratentorial volume affect an inferoposterior rotation of the human foetal tentorium cerebelli. While anatomical variation of brain anatomy following vascular anatomical variation is accepted, it does not explain the increased incidence of occipital bending in depression that we have described.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0270.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207