Evidence for increased motor cortical facilitation and decreased inhibition in atypical depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a clinically heterogeneous condition. However, the role of cortical glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor-mediated activity, implicated in MDD pathophysiology, has not been explored in different MDD subtypes. Our aim was to assess the atypical and melancholic depression subtypes regarding potential differences in GABA and glutamate receptor-mediated activity through established transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) neurophysiological measures from the motor cortex. METHOD: We evaluated 81 subjects free of antidepressant medication, including 21 healthy controls and 20 patients with atypical, 20 with melancholic, and 20 with undifferentiated MDD. Single and paired-pulse TMS paradigms were used to evaluate intracortical facilitation (ICF), cortical silent period (CSP), and short intracortical inhibition (SICI), which index glutamate, GABAB receptor-, and GABAA receptor-mediated activity respectively. RESULTS: Patients with MDD demonstrated significantly decreased mean CSP values than healthy controls (Cohen's d = 0.22-0.3, P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Atypical depression presented a distinct cortical excitability pattern of decreased cortical inhibition and increased cortical facilitation, that is, an increased mean ICF and SICI ratios than other depression subtypes (d = 0.22-0.33, P < 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Different MDD subtypes may demonstrate different neurophysiology in relation to GABAA and glutamatergic activity. TMS as an investigational tool might be useful to distinguish between different MDD subtypes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".