Neuroprogression in post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neuroprogression has been proposed as the pathological rewiring of the brain that takes place in parallel with clinical and neurocognitive deterioration in the course of psychiatric disorders. This study aims to review the biological underpinnings and clinical outcomes related to neuroprogression in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 1, 1960, and January 6, 2020. Inclusion criteria were met when articles assessed brain changes, neurocognition, functioning, inflammation, oxidative stress, and neurotrophins in patients with PTSD. Narrative review articles, case reports, and preclinical studies were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 965 abstracts were identified and 15 articles were included in our systematic review. It seems that for a subset of patients whose symptoms worsen or are maintained at a high intensity there is a progressive change in the frontal lobe, especially the prefrontal cortex, and worsening of both neurocognition (verbal memory and facial recognition) and functioning (physical, psychological, social and environmental). CONCLUSION: Although current findings associate progressive reduction in frontal lobe size with neurocognitive impairment, further research is needed to characterize PTSD as a neuroprogressive disorder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".