A Prospective, Longitudinal Study of the Effect of Remission on Cortical Thickness and Hippocampal Volume in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging studies have provided evidence of structural modifications in cortical-limbic regions in major depressive disorder. To date, however, few studies have tracked structural changes in patients during treatment. This prospective, longitudinal imaging study investigated associations between brain structure and clinical responsiveness in a sample of patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder during an approximate 1-year follow-up period. METHODS: FreeSurfer software was used to extract volume or cortical thickness values from 6 regions of interest (hippocampus, rostral middle frontal gyrus, orbitofrontal cortex, rostral and caudal anterior cingulate cortices, and inferior temporal gyrus) in patients (n = 26) and matched healthy controls (n = 28). Regions of interest were selected based on previous evidence of potential associations between morphometric characteristics in these regions and treatment response or remission. Analyses were conducted to compare volume and cortical thickness in patients and controls at baseline imaging, determine whether patients' brain structure at treatment initiation was associated with response over follow-up, and compare longitudinal changes in volume and cortical thickness in patients who achieved sustained 6-month remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale Score ≤12) with nonremitters. RESULTS: Patients and controls showed no structural differences at baseline. Among patients, thicker right caudal anterior cingulate cortex at baseline was associated with greater symptom improvement over follow-up. Remitters and nonremitters showed subtle changes in volume and thickness over time in opposing directions, with increased hippocampal volume and cortical thickness in the rostral middle frontal gyrus, orbitofrontal cortex, and inferior temporal gyrus in remitters, and decreased volume or thickness in these regions in nonremitters. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that longitudinal structural trajectories may differ in major depressive disorder patients according to their clinical response to treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".