MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117742705 · doi:10.1017/s0033291712002164

Prefrontal cortex function in remitted major depressive disorder

2012· article· en· W2117742705 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Nixon, Peter F. Liddle, G. Worwood, Mario Liotti, Elena Nixon

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersJohnson and JohnsonPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexPsychologyMajor depressive disorderFunction (biology)NeuroscienceClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitive psychologyCognitionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent models of major depressive disorder (MDD) have proposed the rostral anterior cingulate (rACC) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) as nexus sites in the dysfunctional regulation of cognitive-affective state. Limited evidence from remitted-state MDD supports these theories by suggesting that aberrant neural activity proximal to the rACC and the dmPFC may play a role in vulnerability to recurrence/relapse within this disorder. Here we present a targeted analysis assessing functional activity within these two regions of interest (ROIs) for groups with identified vulnerability to MDD: first, remitted, high predicted recurrence-risk patients; and second, patients suffering observed 1-year recurrence. Method Baseline T2* images sensitive to blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) contrast were acquired from patients and controls during a Go/No-Go (GNG) task incorporating negative feedback, with 1-year patient follow-up to identify recurrence. BOLD contrast data for error commission (EC) and visual negative feedback (VNF) were used in an ROI analysis based on rACC and dmPFC coordinates from the literature, comparing patients versus controls and recurrence versus non-recurrence versus control groups. RESULTS: Analysis of patients (n = 20) versus controls (n = 20) showed significant right dmPFC [Brodmann area (BA) 9] hypoactivity within the patient group, co-localized during EC and VNF, with additional significant rACC (BA 32) hypoactivity during EC. The results from the follow-up analysis were undermined by small groups and potential confounders but suggested persistent right dmPFC (BA 9) hypoactivity associated with 1-year recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Convergent hypoactive right dmPFC (BA 9) processing of VNF and EC, possibly impairing adaptive reappraisal of negative experience, was associated most clearly with clinically predicted vulnerability to MDD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MedicineSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207