MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144198011 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20873

Hippocampal volumetrics in treatment‐resistant depression and schizophrenia: The devil's in De‐Tail

2010· article· en· W2144198011 on OpenAlexaff
Jerome J. Maller, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Richard H. Thomson, Mélissa Daigle, Mera S. Barr, Paul B. Fitzgerald

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersBrainsWay
KeywordsHippocampal formationNeuroscienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyDepression (economics)HippocampusPsychiatryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia (SCH) have revealed reduced hippocampal volumes, but findings have been inconsistent due to sample and measurement differences. The current study sought to measure this structure in a large sample of MDD, SCH, and healthy subjects, using a strict measurement protocol, to elucidate morphological-specific volumetric differences. Patients with treatment-resistant MDD (N = 182) and treatment-resistant SCH with auditory-verbal hallucinations (N = 52), and healthy controls (N = 76) underwent psychiatric assessments and brain MRI. The findings indicate that (1) MDD and SCH patients have reduced total hippocampal volume which was marked in the tails (more so in patients with MDD), (2) region of interest estimation protocols and sample characteristics may help explain volumetric differences between previous SCH studies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207