Altered functioning of reward circuitry in youth offspring of parents with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (BD) (BO) are at higher risk of BD than offspring of parents with non-BD psychopathology (NBO), although both groups are at higher risk than offspring of psychiatrically healthy parents (HC) for other affective and psychiatric disorders. Abnormal functioning in reward circuitry has been demonstrated previously in individuals with BD. We aimed to determine whether activation and functional connectivity in this circuitry during risky decision-making differentiated BO, NBO and HC. METHOD: BO (n = 29; mean age = 13.8 years; 14 female), NBO (n = 28; mean age = 13.9 years; 12 female) and HC (n = 23; mean age = 13.7 years; 11 female) were scanned while performing a number-guessing reward task. Of the participants, 11 BO and 12 NBO had current non-BD psychopathology; five BO and four NBO were taking psychotropic medications. RESULTS: A 3 (group) × 2 (conditions: win-control/loss-control) analysis of variance revealed a main effect of group on right frontal pole activation: BO showed significantly greater activation than HC. There was a significant main effect of group on functional connectivity between the bilateral ventral striatum and the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Z > 3.09, cluster-p < 0.05): BO showed significantly greater negative functional connectivity than other participants. These between-group differences remained after removing youth with psychiatric disorders and psychotropic medications from analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that reward circuitry activation and functional connectivity distinguish BO from NBO and HC. The fact that the pattern of findings remained when comparing healthy BO v. healthy NBO v. HC suggests that these neuroimaging measures may represent trait-level neurobiological markers conferring either risk for, or protection against, BD in youth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".