Person-based similarity in brain structure and functional connectivity in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder shows significant variability in clinical presentation. Here we adopt a personalized approach to quantify the brain structural and functional similarity of each individual patient to other patients and to healthy individuals. METHODS: Brain morphometric and resting-state functional connectivity measures from two independent samples of patients with bipolar disorder and healthy individuals (total number of participants=215) were modeled as single vectors to generated individualized morphometric and connectivity profiles. These profiles were then used to compute a person-based similarity indices which quantified the similarity in neuroimaging profiles amongst patients and between patients and health individuals. RESULTS: ). The degree of similarity between imaging profiles was associated with IQ (for cortical thickness) and age (functional integration) rather than clinical variables. Patients who were prescribed lithium, compared to those who were not, showed greater similarity to healthy individuals in terms of network integration (t = 2.2, p = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: We focused on patients with Bipolar disorder, type I only. CONCLUSIONS: High inter-individual similarity in neuroimaging profiles was observed amongst patients with bipolar disorder and between patients and healthy individuals. We infer that brain alterations associated with bipolar disorder may be nested within the normal biological diversity consistent with the high prevalence of mood symptoms in the general population.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".