Demonstrating test‐retest reliability of electrophysiological measures for healthy adults in a multisite study of biomarkers of antidepressant treatment response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that loudness dependency of auditory evoked potentials (LDAEP) and resting EEG alpha and theta may be biological markers for predicting response to antidepressants. In spite of this promise, little is known about the joint reliability of these markers, and thus their clinical applicability. New standardized procedures were developed to improve the compatibility of data acquired with different EEG platforms, and used to examine test-retest reliability for the three electrophysiological measures selected for a multisite project-Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care (EMBARC). Thirty-nine healthy controls across four clinical research sites were tested in two sessions separated by about 1 week. Resting EEG (eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions) was recorded and LDAEP measured using binaural tones (1000 Hz, 40 ms) at five intensities (60-100 dB SPL). Principal components analysis of current source density waveforms reduced volume conduction and provided reference-free measures of resting EEG alpha and N1 dipole activity to tones from auditory cortex. Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) extracted resting theta current density measures corresponding to rostral anterior cingulate (rACC), which has been implicated in treatment response. There were no significant differences in posterior alpha, N1 dipole, or rACC theta across sessions. Test-retest reliability was .84 for alpha, .87 for N1 dipole, and .70 for theta rACC current density. The demonstration of good-to-excellent reliability for these measures provides a template for future EEG/ERP studies from multiple testing sites, and an important step for evaluating them as biomarkers for predicting treatment response.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".