Orbitofrontal control of conduct problems? Evidence from healthy adolescents processing negative facial affect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conduct problems (CP) in patients with disruptive behavior disorders have been linked to impaired prefrontal processing of negative facial affect compared to controls. However, it is unknown whether associations with prefrontal activity during affective face processing hold along the CP dimension in a healthy population sample, and how subcortical processing is affected. We measured functional brain responses during negative affective face processing in 1444 healthy adolescents [M = 14.39 years (SD = 0.40), 51.5% female] from the European IMAGEN multicenter study. To determine the effects of CP, we applied a two-step approach: (a) testing matched subgroups of low versus high CP, extending into the clinical range [N = 182 per group, M = 14.44 years, (SD = 0.41), 47.3% female] using analysis of variance, and (b) considering (non)linear effects along the CP dimension in the full sample and in the high CP group using multiple regression. We observed no significant cortical or subcortical effect of CP group on brain responses to negative facial affect. In the full sample, regression analyses revealed a significant linear increase of left orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) activity with increasing CP up to the clinical range. In the high CP group, a significant inverted u-shaped effect indicated that left OFC responses decreased again in individuals with high CP. Left OFC activity during negative affective processing which is increasing with CP and decreasing in the highest CP range may reflect on the importance of frontal control mechanisms that counteract the consequences of severe CP by facilitating higher social engagement and better evaluation of social content in adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".