Neurobiological commonalities and distinctions among 3 major psychiatric disorders: a graph theoretical analysis of the structural connectome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: White matter network alterations have increasingly been implicated in major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to identify shared and distinct white matter network alterations among the 3 disorders. Methods: We used analysis of covariance, with age and gender as covariates, to investigate white matter network alterations in 123 patients with schizophrenia, 123 with bipolar disorder, 124 with major depressive disorder and 209 healthy controls. Results: We found significant group differences in global network efficiency (F = 3.386, p = 0.018), nodal efficiency (F = 8.015, p < 0.001 corrected for false discovery rate [FDR]) and nodal degree (F = 5.971, pFDR < 0.001) in the left middle occipital gyrus, as well as nodal efficiency (F = 6.930, pFDR < 0.001) and nodal degree (F = 5.884, pFDR < 0.001) in the left postcentral gyrus. We found no significant alterations in patients with major depressive disorder. Post hoc analyses revealed that compared with healthy controls, patients in the schizophrenia and bipolar disorder groups showed decreased global network efficiency, nodal efficiency and nodal degree in the left middle occipital gyrus. Furthermore, patients in the schizophrenia group showed decreased nodal efficiency and nodal degree in the left postcentral gyrus compared with healthy controls. Limitations: Our findings could have been confounded in part by treatment differences. Conclusion: Our findings implicate graded white matter network alterations across the 3 disorders, enhancing our understanding of shared and distinct pathophysiological mechanisms across diagnoses and providing vital insights into neuroimaging-based methods for diagnosis and research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".