MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099554366 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0526

Is the cerebellum relevant in the circuitry of neuropsychiatric disorders?

2005· article· en· W2099554366 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jakub Z. Konarski, Roger S. McIntyre, Larry A. Grupp, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebellumNeuroscienceManiaBrainstemPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Mood disordersDepression (economics)Prefrontal cortexBipolar disorderPsychiatryCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary mechanistic models of several psychiatric disorders propose abnormalities in the structure and function of distinct neural networks. The cerebellum has both anatomic and functional connections to the prefrontal cortex, the subcortical limbic structures and monoamine-producing brainstem nuclei. Conspicuously, however, the cerebellum has been underemphasized in neuropsychiatric research. A growing confluence of scientific data indicate that the cerebellum may not be irrelevant, which suggests that an integrated model of neuropsychiatric disorders should include a role for the cerebellum and its relevant neural connections. This review summarizes the published data describing and characterizing the putative role of the cerebellum in normal and abnormal mood regulation, with specific attention to states of psychosis, depression and mania. The available evidence suggests that a functional role for the cerebellum should be considered in future neuropsychiatric studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations228
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207