Probing the clinical and brain structural boundaries of bipolar and major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) have both common and distinct clinical features, that pose both conceptual challenges in terms of their diagnostic boundaries and practical difficulties in optimizing treatment. Multivariate machine learning techniques offer new avenues for exploring these boundaries based on clinical neuroanatomical features. Brain structural data were obtained at 3 T from a sample of 90 patients with BD, 189 patients with MDD, and 162 healthy individuals. We applied sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis (s-PLS-DA) to identify clinical and brain structural features that may discriminate between the two clinical groups, and heterogeneity through discriminative analysis (HYDRA) to detect patient subgroups with reference to healthy individuals. Two clinical dimensions differentiated BD from MDD (area under the curve: 0.76, P < 0.001); one dimension emphasized disease severity as well as irritability, agitation, anxiety and flight of ideas and the other emphasized mostly elevated mood. Brain structural features could not distinguish between the two disorders. HYDRA classified patients in two clusters that differed in global and regional cortical thickness, the distribution proportion of BD and MDD and positive family history of psychiatric disorders. Clinical features remain the most reliable discriminant attributed of BD and MDD depression. The brain structural findings suggests that biological partitions of patients with mood disorders are likely to lead to the identification of subgroups, that transcend current diagnostic divisions into BD and MDD and are more likely to be aligned with underlying genetic variation. These results set the foundation for future studies to enhance our understanding of brain-behavior relationships in mood disorders.
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".