Relevance of brain plasticity to neuroprogression and staging of bipolar disorders – opposing effects of illness burden and lithium treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Brain changes in bipolar disorders (BD) may represent inherited risk factors or consequences of the illness (brain plasticity). Neuroanatomical changes, which predispose for BD could aid in early diagnosis, whereas the neuronal sequellae of BD could yield biological outcome measures for prevention and treatment. Methods To separate neuroanatomical changes into those that increase the risk of BD versus those that result from it, we acquired MRI/clinical data from participants at different stages of BD, including: (1) affected and unaffected offspring of bipolar parents ( n = 86); (2) participants with substantial illness burden who had had at least 2 years of current Li treatment ( n = 37) or were Li naive ( n = 19). We also recruited 99 healthy controls matched to the above-mentioned cohorts by age and sex. Results Relative to controls, both the affected and unaffected offpring of bipolar probands showed increased right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) volume, but comparable hippocampal volumes and prefrontal N -acetyl aspartate (NAA) levels. Larger rIFG volume was associated with an increased risk of conversion to psychiatric disorders within 4 years following the MRI scanning (hazard ratio = 4.5). In contrast, Li naive patients with substantial illness burden had smaller rIFG, hippocampal volumes and prefrontal NAA levels than controls, who were comparable in these indices to the the Li treated subjects with substantial illness burden. Conclusions Brain structural changes in BD may not be static, but may instead result from an interplay between illness burden and compensatory processes. This illness related brain plasticity may be modulated by lithium treatment. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied his declaration of competing interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".