Evidence for reduced long-term potentiation-like visual cortical plasticity in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Several lines of research suggest that impairments in long-term potentiation (LTP)-like synaptic plasticity might be a key pathophysiological mechanism in schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder type I (BDI) and II (BDII). Using modulations of visually evoked potentials (VEP) of the electroencephalogram, impaired LTP-like visual cortical plasticity has been implicated in patients with BDII, while there has been conflicting evidence in SZ, a lack of research in BDI, and mixed results regarding associations with symptom severity, mood states, and medication. Methods We measured the VEP of patients with SZ spectrum disorders (n=31), BDI (n=34), BDII (n=33), and other BD spectrum disorders (n=2), and age-matched healthy control participants (n=200) before and after prolonged visual stimulation. Results Compared to healthy controls, modulation of VEP component N1b, but not C1 or P1, was impaired both in patients within the SZ spectrum (χ 2 =35.1, p=3.1×10 −9 ) and BD spectrum (χ 2 =7.0, p=8.2×10 −3 ), including BDI (χ 2 =6.4, p=0.012), but not BDII (χ 2 =2.2, p=0.14). N1b modulation was also more severely impaired in SZ spectrum than BD spectrum patients (χ 2 =14.2, p=1.7×10 −4 ). The reduction in N1b modulation was related to PANSS total scores (χ 2 =10.8, p=1.0×10 −3 ), and nominally to number of psychotic episodes (χ 2 =4.9, p=0.027). Conclusions. These results suggest that LTP-like plasticity is impaired in SZ and BDI, but not BDII, and related to psychotic symptom severity. Adding to previous genetic, pharmacological, and anatomical evidence, these results implicate aberrant synaptic plasticity as a mechanism underlying SZ and BD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".