An investigation of cortical thickness and antidepressant response in major depressive disorder: A CAN-BIND study report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is considered a highly heterogeneous clinical and neurobiological mental disorder. We employed a novel layered treatment design to investigate whether cortical thickness features at baseline differentiated treatment responders from non-responders after 8 and 16 weeks of a standardized sequential antidepressant treatment. Secondary analyses examined baseline differences between MDD and controls as a replication analysis and longitudinal changes in thickness after 8 weeks of escitalopram treatment. 181 MDD and 95 healthy comparison (HC) participants were studied. After 8 weeks of escitalopram treatment (10-20 mg/d, flexible dosage), responders (>50% decrease in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale score) were continued on escitalopram; non-responders received adjunctive aripiprazole (2-10 mg/d, flexible dosage). MDD participants were classified into subgroups according to their response profiles at weeks 8 and 16. Baseline group differences in cortical thickness were analyzed with FreeSurfer between HC and MDD groups as well as between response groups. Two-stage longitudinal processing was used to investigate 8-week escitalopram treatment-related changes in cortical thickness. Compared to HC, the MDD group exhibited thinner cortex in the left rostral middle frontal cortex [MNI(X,Y,Z=-29,9,54.5,-7.7); CWP=0.0002]. No baseline differences in cortical thickness were observed between responders and non-responders based on week-8 or week-16 response profile. No changes in cortical thickness was observed after 8 weeks of escitalopram monotherapy. In a two-step 16-week sequential clinical trial we found that baseline cortical thickness does not appear to be associated to clinical response to pharmacotherapy at 8 or 16 weeks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".