Differential patterns of activity and functional connectivity in emotion processing neural circuitry to angry and happy faces in adolescents with and without suicide attempt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neural substrates of emotion dysregulation in adolescent suicide attempters remain unexamined. METHOD: We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure neural activity to neutral, mild or intense (i.e., 0%, 50% or 100% intensity) emotion face morphs in two separate emotion-processing runs (angry and happy) in three adolescent groups: (1) history of suicide attempt and depression (ATT, n=14) ; (2) history of depression alone (NAT, n=15) ; and (3) healthy controls (HC, n=15). Post-hoc analyses were conducted on interactions from 3 group x 3 condition (intensities) whole-brain analyses (p<0.05, corrected) for each emotion run. RESULTS: To 50% intensity angry faces, ATT showed significantly greater activity than NAT in anterior cingulate gyral–dorsolateral prefrontal cortical attentional control circuitry, primary sensory and temporal cortices; and significantly greater activity than HC in the primary sensory cortex, while NAT had significantly lower activity than HC in the anterior cingulate gyrus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. To neutral faces during the angry emotion processing run, ATT had significantly lower activity than NAT in the fusiform gyrus. ATT also showed significantly lower activity than HC to 100% intensity happy faces in the primary sensory cortex, and to neutral faces in the happy run in the anterior cingulate and left medial frontal gyri (all p<0.006,corrected). Psychophysiological interaction analyses revealed significantly reduced anterior cingulate gyral–insula functional connectivity to 50% intensity angry faces in ATT v. NAT or HC. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated activity in attention control circuitry, and reduced anterior cingulate gyral–insula functional connectivity, to 50% intensity angry faces in ATT than other groups suggest that ATT may show inefficient recruitment of attentional control neural circuitry when regulating attention to mild intensity angry faces, which may represent a potential biological marker for suicide risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".