Facial affect processing inbipolar disorder:a magnetoencephalography study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Identifying biological markers to aid diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) is critically important. To be considered a possible biological marker, neural patterns in BD should be discriminant from those in healthy individuals (HI). We examined patterns of neuromagnetic responses revealed by magnetoencephalography (MEG) during implicit emotion-processing using emotional (happy, fearful, sad) and neutral facial expressions, in sixteen BD and sixteen age- and gender-matched healthy individuals. Methods: Neuromagnetic data were recorded using a 306-channel whole-head MEG ELEKTA Neuromag System, and preprocessed using Signal Space Separation as implemented in MaxFilter (ELEKTA). Custom Matlab programs removed EOG and ECG signals from filtered MEG data, and computed means of epoched data (0-250ms, 250-500ms, 500-750ms). A generalized linear model with three factors (individual, emotion intensity and time) compared BD and HI. A principal component analysis of normalized mean channel data in selected brain regions identified principal components that explained 95% of data variation. These components were used in a quadratic support vector machine (SVM) pattern classifier. SVM classifier performance was assessed using the leave-one-out approach. Results: BD and HI showed significantly different patterns of activation for 0-250ms within both left occipital and temporal regions, specifically for neutral facial expressions. PCA analysis revealed significant differences between BD and HI for mild fearful, happy, and sad facial expressions within 250-500ms. SVM quadratic classifier showed greatest accuracy (84%) and sensitivity (92%) for neutral faces, in left occipital regions within 500-750ms. Conclusions: MEG responses may be used in the search for disease specific neural markers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".