Multimodal brain imaging connectivity analyses of emotional and motivational deficits in depression among women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by impaired cortical-subcortical functional connectivity. Apathy adds to functional impairment, but its cerebral basis in MDD remains unknown. Our objective was to describe impairments in functional connectivity during emotional processing in MDD (with varying levels of congruency and attention), and to determine their correlation with apathy. METHODS: We used the Variable Attention Affective Task during functional MRI, followed by diffusion-weighted MRI, to assess 55 right-handed women (30 with MDD and 25 healthy controls) between September 2012 and February 2015. We estimated functional connectivity using generalized psychophysiologic interaction and anatomic connectivity with tract-based spatial statistics. We measured apathy using the Apathy Evaluation Scale. RESULTS: We found decreased functional connectivity between the left amygdala and the left anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) during negative stimuli in participants with MDD (t54 = 4.2; p = 0.035, family-wise error [FWE]-corrected). During high-attention stimuli, participants with MDD showed reduced functional connectivity between the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and the right ACC (t54 = 4.06, pFWE = 0.02), but greater functional connectivity between the right dlPFC and the right amygdala (t54 = 3.35, p = 0.048). Apathy was associated with increased functional connectivity between the right dlPFC and the right ACC during high-attention stimuli (t28 = 5.2, p = 0.01) and increased fractional anisotropy in the right posterior cerebellum, the anterior and posterior cingulum and the bilateral internal capsule (all pFWE < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Limitations included a moderate sample size, concomitant antidepressant therapy and no directed connectivity. CONCLUSION: We found that MDD was associated with impairments in cortical-subcortical functional connectivity during negative stimuli that might alter the recruitment of networks engaged in attention. Apathy-related features suggested networks similar to those observed in degenerative disorders, but possible different mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".