MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132637444 · doi:10.1503/jpn.110143

Smaller hippocampal volumes in patients with bipolar disorder are masked by exposure to lithium: a meta-analysis

2012· review· en· W2132637444 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Tomáš Hájek, Miloslav Kopeček, Cyril Höschl, Martin Alda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinisterstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské RepublikyDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health Research Foundation
KeywordsHippocampal formationBipolar disorderNeuroimagingLithium (medication)Confidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychologyHippocampusDepression (economics)MedicineCardiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smaller hippocampal volumes relative to controls are among the most replicated neuroimaging findings in individuals with unipolar but not bipolar depression. Preserved hippocampal volumes in most studies of participants with bipolar disorder may reflect potential neuroprotective effects of lithium (Li). METHODS: To investigate hippocampal volumes in patients with bipolar disorder while controlling for Li exposure, we performed a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies that subdivided patients based on the presence or absence of current Li treatment. To achieve the best coverage of literature, we categorized studies based on whether all or a majority, or whether no or a minority of patients were treated with Li. Hippocampal volumes were compared by combining standardized differences between means (Cohen d) from individual studies using random-effects models. RESULTS: Overall, we analyzed data from 101 patients with bipolar disorder in the Li group, 245 patients in the non-Li group and 456 control participants from 16 studies. Both the left and right hippocampal volumes were significantly larger in the Li group than in controls (Cohen d = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.88; Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81, respectively) or the non-Li group (Cohen d = 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.31; Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.45, respectively), which had smaller left and right hippocampal volumes than the control group (Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.17; Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.13, respectively). There was no evidence of publication bias. LIMITATIONS: Missing information about the illness burden or lifetime exposure to Li and polypharmacy in some studies may have contributed to statistical heterogeneity in some analyses. CONCLUSION: When exposure to Li was minimized, patients with bipolar disorder showed smaller hippocampal volumes than controls or Li-treated patients. Our findings provide indirect support for the negative effects of bipolar disorder on hippocampal volumes and are consistent with the putative neuroprotective effects of Li. The preserved hippocampal volumes among patients with bipolar disorder in most individual studies and all previous meta-analyses may have been related to the inclusion of Li-treated participants.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.041
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207