MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327912716 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00045

A Review of Impaired Neuroplasticity in Schizophrenia Investigated with Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

2016· review· en· W2327912716 on OpenAlexafffund
Apoorva Bhandari, Daphne Voineskos, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Tarek K. Rajji, Daniel M. Blumberger

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersTemerty Family Foundation
KeywordsNeuroplasticitySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Brain stimulationNeuroscienceStimulationPsychologyTranscranial direct-current stimulationMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several lines of evidence implicate dysfunctional neuronal plasticity in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia (SCZ). Aberrant glutamatergic and gamma amino--butyric acid neurotransmission are thought to underlie core cognitive deficits and negative symptoms of SCZ. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) allows for the in vivo study of cortical plasticity and excitability at the systems level of the human motor cortex. This review will focus on summarizing the available neurophysiological evidence for impaired motor cortical plasticity in SCZ assessed by NIBS. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed was performed on the use of NIBS techniques to investigate neuroplasticity in the motor cortex of SCZ patients. The relevant articles were summarized. CONCLUSION: Our review of the literature reveals evidence for disrupted neuroplasticity in SCZ and its close association to alterations in cortical inhibition and dysfunctional intracortical connectivity. Further investigations are required to elucidate the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie dysfunctional plasticity in SCZ in order to develop more targeted therapeutic interventions for SCZ patients.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207