Cortical Inhibitory Dysfunction in Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuroanatomic evidence suggests that patients with bipolar disorder (BD) have impaired cortical inhibition (CI). However, there is little in vivo neurophysiological evidence supporting the occurrence of such impairments in this disorder. Using 3 transcranial magnetic stimulation paradigms, known as short-interval CI (SICI), cortical silent period (SP), and interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), the authors measured inhibition in the motor cortex. METHOD: Fifteen patients with BD and 15 healthy subjects were enrolled. Short-interval CI involves stimulating with a subthreshold pulse a few milliseconds before a suprathreshold pulse, thereby inhibiting the size of the motor-evoked potential (MEP) produced by the suprathreshold pulse. In the SP paradigm, inhibition is reflected by the SP duration (ie, the duration of electromyographic activity cessation following a transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced MEP). Interhemispheric inhibition involves a subthreshold conditioning stimulus applied to the right motor cortex several milliseconds before a suprathreshold test stimulus is applied to the left motor cortex which inhibits the size of the MEP produced by the test stimulus by 50% to 75%. RESULTS: Patients with BD demonstrated deficits in all 3 paradigms: SICI (F1,28 = 5.55, P = 0.03; Cohen d = 0.86), SP (F1,28 = 5.24, P = 0.03; Cohen d = 0.84), and IHI (F1,28 = 3.41, P = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.77) compared with healthy volunteers with a large effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the hypothesis that CI is decreased in BD. Further understanding of the neurophysiology of such deficiencies may help to elucidate future treatment options.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".