MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082625755 · doi:10.1503/jpn.190212

Differing functional mechanisms underlie cognitive control deficits in psychotic spectrum disorders

2020· article· en· W3082625755 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David D. Stephenson, Ansam A. El Shaikh, Nicholas A. Shaff, Juan Bustillo, Andrew B. Dodd, Christopher J. Wertz, Sephira G. Ryman, Jeremy Hogeveen, Josef M. Ling, Ronald A. Yeo, Shannon F. Stromberg, Denise Lin, Swala K. Abrams, Andrew R. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsNeuroimagingPsychologyPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceHypoactivityCognitionDorsolateral prefrontal cortexFunctional neuroimagingAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Functional underpinnings of cognitive control deficits in unbiased samples (i.e., all comers) of patients with psychotic spectrum disorders (PSD) remain actively debated. While many studies suggest hypofrontality in the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and greater deficits during proactive relative to reactive control, few have examined the full hemodynamic response. Methods: Patients with PSD (n = 154) and healthy controls (n = 65) performed the AX continuous performance task (AX-CPT) during rapid (460 ms) functional neuroimaging and underwent full clinical characterization. Results: Behavioural results indicated generalized cognitive deficits (slower and less accurate) across proactive and reactive control conditions in patients with PSD relative to healthy controls. We observed a delayed/prolonged neural response in the left dorsolateral PFC, the sensorimotor cortex and the superior parietal lobe during proactive control for patients with PSD. These proactive hemodynamic abnormalities were better explained by negative rather than by positive symptoms or by traditional diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), with subsequent simulations unequivocally demonstrating how these abnormalities could be erroneously interpreted as hypoactivation. Conversely, true hypoactivity, unassociated with clinical symptoms or DSM-IV-TR diagnoses, was observed within the ventrolateral PFC during reactive control. Limitations: In spite of guidance for AX-CPT use in neuroimaging studies, one-third of patients with PSD could not perform the task above chance and were more clinically impaired. Conclusion: Current findings question the utility of the AX-CPT for neuroimaging-based appraisal of cognitive control across the full spectrum of patients with PSD. Previously reported lateral PFC "hypoactivity" during proactive control may be more indicative of a delayed/prolonged neural response, important for rehabilitative purposes. Negative symptoms may better explain certain behavioural and hemodynamic abnormalities in patients with PSD relative to DSM-IV-TR diagnoses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207