MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neuroanatomical abnormalities as risk factors for bipolar disorder

2005· review· en· W2120694965 on OpenAlexaff
Tomáš Hájek, Normand Carrey, Martin Alda

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityBipolar disorderWhite matterPutamenPsychologyNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexNeuroimagingAmygdalaGrey matterVentral striatumHippocampusMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingStriatumCognitionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Neuroimaging studies show structural brain abnormalities in bipolar patients. Some of the abnormalities may represent biological risk factors conveying vulnerability for the disease. This paper aims to identify neuroanatomical risk factors for bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: We reviewed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in populations in which the effects of the disease or treatment are minimal or where the chances of finding genetically coded risk factors shared within the families are increased. Such populations include unaffected relatives of bipolar patients, first-episode patients, children or adolescents with BD and patients with familial BD. RESULTS: MEDLINE search revealed 30 relevant scientific papers. Abnormalities in the volume of the striatum, left hemispheric white matter, thalamus and anterior cingulate as well as quantitative MRI signal hyperintensities were identified already in unaffected relatives of bipolar patients. Subjects in the early stages of the disease showed volume changes of the ventricles, white matter, caudate, putamen, amygdala, hippocampus and the subgenual prefrontal cortex. Reduction in the subgenual prefrontal cortex volume was replicated in three of four studies in patients with familial BD. CONCLUSIONS: Possible candidates for neuroanatomical risk factors for BD are volumetric abnormalities of the subgenual prefrontal cortex, striatum, white matter, and probably also the hippocampus and amygdala. Qualitative finding of white matter hyperintensities was already utilized as an endophenotype.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations157
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207