How do antidepressants influence the BOLD signal in the developing brain?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is a highly prevalent life-threatening disorder, with its first onset commonly occurring during adolescence. Adolescent depression is increasingly being treated with antidepressants, such as fluoxetine. The use of medication during this sensitive period of physiological and cognitive brain development produces neurobiological changes, some of which may outlast the course of treatment. In this review, we look at how antidepressant treatment in adolescence is likely to alter neurovascular coupling and brain energy use and how these changes, in turn, affect our ability to identify neuronal activity changes between participant groups. BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), the method most commonly used to record brain activity in humans, is an indirect measure of neuronal activity. This means that between-group comparisons - adolescent versus adult, depressed versus healthy, medicated versus non-medicated - rely upon a stable relationship existing between neuronal activity and the BOLD response across these groups. We use data from animal studies to detail the ways in which fluoxetine may alter this relationship, and explore how these alterations may influence the interpretation of BOLD signal differences between groups that have been treated with fluoxetine and those that have not.
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.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it