Personalized estimates of morphometric similarity in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are associated with brain morphometry alterations. This study investigates inter-individual variability in brain structural profiles, both within diagnostic groups and between patients and healthy individuals. Brain morphometric measures from three independent samples of patients with schizophrenia (n = 168), bipolar disorder (n = 122), and healthy individuals (n = 180) were modeled as single vectors to generated individualized profiles of subcortical volumes and regional cortical thickness. These profiles were then used to compute a person-based similarity index (PBSI) for subcortical volumes and for regional cortical thickness, to quantify the within-group similarity of the morphometric profile of each individual to that of the other participants in the same diagnostic group. There was no effect of diagnosis on the PBSI for subcortical volumes. In contrast, compared to healthy individuals, the PBSI for cortical thickness was lower in patients with schizophrenia (effect size = 0.4, p ≤ 0.0002), but not in patients with bipolar disorder. The results were robust and reproducible across samples. We conclude that disease mechanisms for these disorders produce modest inter-individual variations in brain morphometry that should be considered in future studies attempting to cluster patients in subgroups.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".