The neurobiology of self-face recognition in depressed adolescents with low or high suicidality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to test whether the neurobiology of self-processing differentiated depressed adolescents with high suicidality (HS) from those with low suicidality (LS) and healthy controls (HC; N = 119, MAGE = 14.79, SD = 1.64, Min = 11.3, Max = 17.8). Participants completed a visual self-recognition task in the scanner during which they identified their own or an unfamiliar adolescent face across 3 emotional expressions (happy, neutral or sad). A 3-group (HS, LS, HC) by 2 within-subject factors (2 Self conditions [self, other] and 3 Emotions [happy, neutral, sad]) GLM yielded (a) a main effect of Self condition with all participants showing higher activity in the right occipital, precuneus and fusiform during the self- versus other-face conditions; (b) a main effect of Group where all depressed youth showed higher dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity than HC across all conditions, and with HS showing higher cuneus and occipital activity versus both LS and HC; and (c) a Group by Self by Emotion interaction with HS showing lower activity in both mid parietal, limbic, and prefrontal areas in the Happy self versus other-face condition relative to the LS group, who in turn had less activity compared to HC youth. Covarying for depression severity replicated all results except the third finding; In this subsequent analysis, a Group by Self interaction showed that although HC had similar midline cortical structure (MCS) activity for all faces, LS showed higher MCS activity for the self versus other faces, whereas HS showed the opposite pattern. Results suggest that the neurophysiology of emotionally charged self-referential information can distinguish depressed, suicidal youth versus nonsuicidal depressed and healthy adolescents. Neurophysiological differences and implications for the prediction of suicidality in youth are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".