Hippocampal Neurogenesis, Neurotrophic Factors and Depression: Possible Therapeutic Targets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depression is one of the leading causes of disability and psychosocial impairment worldwide. Although many advances have been made in the neurobiology of this complex disorder, the pathophysiological mechanisms are still unclear. Among the proposed theories, impaired neuroplasticity and hippocampal neurogenesis have received considerable attention. The possible association between hippocampal neurogenesis, neurotrophic factors, major depression, and antidepressant responses was critically analyzed using a comprehensive search of articles/book chapters in English language between 1980 and 2014. One common emerging theme was that chronic stress and major depression are associated with structural brain changes such as a loss of dendritic spines and synapses, as well as reduced dendritic arborisation, together with diminished glial cells in the hippocampus. Both central monoamines and neurotrophic factors were associated with a modulation of hippocampal progenitor proliferation and cell survival. Accordingly, antidepressants are generally suggested to reverse stress-induced structural changes augmenting dendritic arborisation and synaptogenesis. Such antidepressant consequences are supposed to stem from their stimulatory effects on neurotrophic factors, and possibly modulation of glial cells. Of course, accumulating evidence also suggested that glutamatergic systems are implicated in not only basic neuroplastic processes, but also in the core features of depression. Hence, it is critical that antidepressant strategies focus on links between the various neurotransmitter systems, neurotrophic processes of hippocampal neurogenesis, and neurotrophic factors with regards to depressive symptomology. The identification of novel alternative antidepressant medications that target these systems is discussed in this review.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".