MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901217312 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000001163

Altered hippocampal function with preserved cognitive performance in treatment-naive major depressive disorder

2018· article· en· W2901217312 on OpenAlexaff
Gésine L. Alders, Andrea M. Milne, Luciano Minuzzi, Benício N. Frey, Glenda MacQueen, Geoffrey B. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCalgary General HospitalUniversity of CalgarySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingHippocampusPsychologyMajor depressive disorderParahippocampal gyrusHippocampal formationNeuroscienceCognitionMagnetic resonance imagingEpisodic memoryMedicineTemporal lobeEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocampus is implicated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), with evidence that morphological changes occur with disease progression. It was hypothesized that treatment-naive patients with depression would show performance deficits in hippocampus-dependent memory trials, with concurrent hippocampal activation deficits on functional magnetic resonance imaging, compared with control participants. Thirteen treatment-naive patients with MDD and 13 control participants completed a hippocampus-dependent memory functional magnetic resonance imaging process-dissociation task. On behavioural measures of habit memory and guessing, there were no significant differences between groups. Functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis indicated that compared with the control group, the MDD group showed increased activation in the parahippocampal gyrus and hippocampus on habit memory and nonitem trials. These alterations in hippocampal functioning with preserved cognitive performance on a test of hippocampus-dependent memory in MDD may be indicative of a compensatory mechanism.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207