MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885963010 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101650

Girls' internalizing symptoms and white matter tracts in Cortico-Limbic circuitry

2018· article· en· W2885963010 on OpenAlexafffund
Ola Mohamed Ali, Matthew R.J. Vandermeer, Haroon Sheikh, Marc F. Joanisse, Elizabeth P. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWestern UniversityCanada Foundation for InnovationFondation Brain CanadaChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsUncinate fasciculusFractional anisotropyCingulum (brain)White matterPsychologyDiffusion MRILimbic systemFasciculusPsychopathologyNeuroscienceAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyMagnetic resonance imagingCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysfunction in cortico-limbic circuitry is implicated in internalizing disorders (i.e., depressive and anxious disorders), but less is known about whether structural variations precede frank disorder and thus potentially mark risk. We therefore examined associations between white matter (WM) tract microstructure in cortico-limbic circuitry at age 7 and concurrent and longitudinal patterns of internalizing symptoms in 42 typically developing girls using Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). Girls' internalizing symptoms were concurrently associated with reduced fractional anisotropy (FA) in segments of the cingulum bundle (CB) and the uncinate fasciculus (UF), bilaterally. Moreover, latent profile analysis showed that girls with increasing internalizing symptoms, based on assessments at ages 3, 6, 7, and 8, had reduced FA in these segments compared to girls with stably low symptoms. These results point to a putative neural mechanism underlying the course of childhood internalizing symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207