MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163431819 · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.057919

Brain serotonin-2 receptors in acute mania

2009· article· en· W2163431819 on OpenAlexaff
Lakshmi N. Yatham, Peter F. Liddle, Jonathan Erez, Marcia Kauer‐Sant’Anna, Raymond W. Lam, Miguel Imperial, Vesna Sossi, Thomas J. Ruth

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManiaBinding potentialBipolar disorderStatistical parametric mappingPsychologyReceptorSerotoninInternal medicineNeuroscience5-HT receptorPositron emission tomographyEndocrinologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) has been implicated in mania, the precise alterations in the 5-HT system remain elusive. AIMS: To assess brain 5-HT2 receptors in drug-free individuals experiencing a manic episode in comparison with healthy volunteers using positron emission tomography (PET). METHOD: Participants (n = 10) with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder-manic episode and healthy controls (n = 10) underwent [18F]-setoperone scans. The differences in 5-HT2 receptor binding potential between the two groups were determined using statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis. RESULTS: Age was a significant correlate with 5-HT2 receptor binding potential with a similar magnitude of correlation in both groups. The SPM analysis with age as a covariate showed that the individuals with current mania had significantly lower 5-HT2 receptor binding potential in frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital cortical regions, with changes more prominent in the right cortical regions compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that brain 5-HT2 receptors are decreased in people with acute mania.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207