Hippocampal subfield volumes are uniquely affected in PTSD and depression: International analysis of 31 cohorts from the PGC-ENIGMA PTSD Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background PTSD and depression commonly co-occur and have been associated with smaller hippocampal volumes compared to healthy and trauma-exposed controls. However, the hippocampus is heterogeneous, with subregions that may be uniquely affected in individuals with PTSD and depression. Methods We used random effects regressions and a harmonized neuroimaging protocol based on FreeSurfer (v6.0) to identify sub-structural hippocampal markers of current PTSD (C-PTSD), depression, and the interaction of these conditions across 31 cohorts worldwide (N=3,115; M age =38.9±13.9 years). Secondary analyses tested these associations by sex and after modeling the simultaneous effects of remitted PTSD, childhood trauma, mild traumatic brain injury, and alcohol use disorder. Results A significant negative main effect of depression (n=800, vs. no depression, n=1456) was observed in the hippocampal tail (ß=−0.13) and CA1 (ß=−0.09) after adjusting for covariates and multiple testing (adjusted p’s (q)=0.028). A main effect of C-PTSD (n=1042 vs. control, n=1359) was not significant, but an interaction between C-PTSD and depression was significant in the CA1 (ß=−0.24, q=0.044). Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly smaller CA1 volumes in individuals with C-PTSD+Depression than controls (ß=−0.12, q=0.012), C-PTSD-only (ß=−0.17, q=0.001), and Depression-only (ß=−0.18, q=0.023). Follow-up analyses revealed sex effects in the hippocampal tail of depressed females, and an interaction effect of C-PTSD and depression in the fimbria of males. Conclusions Collectively our results suggest that depression is a stronger predictor of hippocampal volumetry than PTSD, particularly in the CA1, and provide compelling evidence of more pronounced hippocampal phenotypes in comorbid PTSD and depression compared to either condition alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".