MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158022601 · doi:10.1002/hbm.25453

Abnormal prediction error processing in schizophrenia and depression

2021· review· en· W3158022601 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary Yaple, Serenella Tolomeo, Rongjun Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulaSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyDepression (economics)Posterior cingulatePrefrontal cortexAnterior cingulate cortexMean squared prediction errorNeuroscienceAudiologyPsychiatryCortex (anatomy)MedicineCognitionMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To make adaptive decisions under uncertainty, individuals need to actively monitor the discrepancy between expected outcomes and actual outcomes, known as prediction errors. Reward-based learning deficits have been shown in both depression and schizophrenia patients. For this study, we compiled studies that investigated prediction error processing in depression and schizophrenia patients and performed a series of meta-analyses. In both groups, positive t-maps of prediction error tend to yield striatum activity across studies. The analysis of negative t-maps of prediction error revealed two large clusters within the right superior and inferior frontal lobes in schizophrenia and the medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral insula in depression. The concordant posterior cingulate activity was observed in both patient groups, more prominent in the depression group and absent in the healthy control group. These findings suggest a possible role in dopamine-rich areas associated with the encoding of prediction errors in depression and schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207