Neural Mechanisms Underlying Affective Theory of Mind in Violent Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among violent offenders with schizophrenia, there are 2 sub-groups, one with and one without, conduct disorder (CD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), who differ as to treatment response and alterations of brain structure. The present study aimed to determine whether the 2 groups also differ in Theory of Mind and neural activations subsuming this task. Five groups of men were compared: 3 groups of violent offenders-schizophrenia plus CD/ASPD, schizophrenia with no history of antisocial behavior prior to illness onset, and CD/ASPD with no severe mental illness-and 2 groups of non-offenders, one with schizophrenia and one without (H). Participants completed diagnostic interviews, the Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version Interview, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, authorized access to clinical and criminal files, and underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging while completing an adapted version of the Reading-the-Mind-in-the-Eyes Task (RMET). Relative to H, nonviolent and violent men with schizophrenia and not CD/ASPD performed more poorly on the RMET, while violent offenders with CD/ASPD, both those with and without schizophrenia, performed similarly. The 2 groups of violent offenders with CD/ASPD, both those with and without schizophrenia, relative to the other groups, displayed higher levels of activation in a network of prefrontal and temporal-parietal regions and reduced activation in the amygdala. Relative to men without CD/ASPD, both groups of violent offenders with CD/ASPD displayed a distinct pattern of neural responses during emotional/mental state attribution pointing to distinct and comparatively successful processing of social information.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".