MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045740144 · doi:10.1503/jpn.190156

Volumetric brain differences in clinical depression in association with anxiety: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3045740144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniela A. Espinoza Oyarce, Marnie Shaw, Khawlah Alateeq, Nicolas Cherbuin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisDepression (economics)AnxietyAssociation (psychology)Systematic reviewPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychotherapistBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Structural differences associated with depression have not been confirmed in brain regions apart from the hippocampus. Comorbid anxiety has been inconsistently assessed, and may explain discrepancies in previous findings. We investigated the link between depression, comorbid anxiety and brain structure. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42018089286). We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Scopus, from database inception to Sept. 13, 2018, for MRI case-control studies that reported brain volumes in healthy adults and adults with clinical depression. We summarized mean volumetric differences using meta-analyses, and we assessed demographics, depression factors and segmentation procedure as moderators using meta-regressions. Results: We included 112 studies in the meta-analyses, assessing 4911 healthy participants and 5934 participants with depression (mean age 49.8 yr, 68.2% female). Volume effects were greater in late-onset depression and in multiple episodes of depression. Adults with depression and no comorbidity showed significantly lower volumes in the putamen, pallidum and thalamus, as well as significantly lower grey matter volume and intracranial volume; the largest effects were in the hippocampus (6.8%, p < 0.001). Adults with depression and comorbid anxiety showed significantly higher volumes in the amygdala (3.6%, p < 0.001). Comorbid anxiety lowered depression effects by 3% on average. Sex moderated reductions in intracranial volume. Limitations: High heterogeneity in hippocampus effects could not be accounted for by any moderator. Data on symptom severity and medication were sparse, but other factors likely made significant contributions. Conclusion: Depression-related differences in brain structure were modulated by comorbid anxiety, chronicity of symptoms and onset of illness. Early diagnosis of anxiety symptomatology will prove crucial to ensuring effective, tailored treatments for improving long-term mental health and mitigating cognitive problems, given the effects in the hippocampus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207