Contrasting variability patterns in the default mode and sensorimotor networks balance in bipolar depression and mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder show opposite constellations of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor symptoms. At a neural level, these may be related to topographical disbalance between large-scale networks, such as the default mode network (DMN) and sensorimotor network (SMN). We investigated topographical patterns of variability in the resting-state signal-measured by fractional SD (fSD) of the BOLD signal-of the DMN and SMN (and other networks) in two frequency bands (Slow5 and Slow4) with their ratio and clinical correlations in depressed (n = 20), manic (n = 20), euthymic (n = 20) patients, and healthy controls (n = 40). After controlling for global signal changes, the topographical balance between the DMN and SMN, specifically in the lowest frequency band, as calculated by the Slow5 fSD DMN/SMN ratio, was significantly increased in depression, whereas the same ratio was significantly decreased in mania. Additionally, Slow5 variability was increased in the DMN and decreased in the SMN in depressed patients, whereas the opposite topographical pattern was observed in mania. Finally, the Slow5 fSD DMN/SMN ratio correlated positively with clinical scores of depressive symptoms and negatively with those of mania. Results were replicated in a smaller independent bipolar disorder sample. We demonstrated topographical abnormalities in frequency-specific resting-state variability in the balance between DMN and SMN with opposing patterns in depression and mania. The Slow5 DMN/SMN ratio was tilted toward the DMN in depression but was shifted toward the SMN in mania. The Slow5 fSD DMN/SMN pattern could constitute a state-biomarker in diagnosis and therapy.
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".