Brain activation before and after cognitive-behavior therapy in first-episode patients with mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive-behavior therapy（CBT）for major depressive disorder（MDD） by detecting the neural changes of patients following CBT. Methods Thirteen first-episode treatment-naive patients with MDD and 13 matched healthy volunteers underwent fMRI scan. All the patients were treated with 6-week CBT only and scanned again after treatment. A gender recognition task with neutral, positive and negative expressions was performed by all subjects during each scan. The fMRI data was processed by SPM8 to detect the brain activation in negative and positive condition. Results In negative condition, patients showed decrease of activation in right cerebellum and postcentral gyrus compared to the healthy. After treatment, the activation in vermis was still lower in patients than the healthy. The patients exhibited increased activation in left fusiform gyrus, right insula, left caudate, right middle frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule after treatment, and reversed activation in left precentral gyrus （Montreal Neurological Institute（x,y,z）: -54，0，21，t=4.67,P＜0.05）, right opercular part of inferior frontal gyrus (Montreal Neurological Institute（x,y,z）: 48，15，15，t=5.10,P＜0.05） and bilateral supramarginal gyrus (right:Montreal Neurological Institute（x,y,z）: 54，-21，27，t=5.19；left: Montreal Neurological Institute（x,y,z）: -60，-24，33，t=4.81；P＜0.05） to positive expressions. Conclusion CBT may work via down-regulation of response inhibition systems and up-regulation of emotional processing and cognitive monitor system. Key words: Cognitive therapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Depressive disorder; Task-state
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".