Bilateral Amygdala Radio-Frequency Ablation for Refractory Aggressive Behavior Alters Local Cortical Thickness to a Pattern Found in Non-refractory Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggressive behaviors comprise verbal and/or physical aggression directed toward oneself, others, or objects and are highly prevalent among psychiatric patients, especially patients diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and severe intellectual disabilities. Some of these patients are considered refractory to treatment, and functional neurosurgery targeting the amygdala can result in widespread plastic brain changes that might reflect ceasing of some abnormal brain function, offering symptom alleviation. This study investigated cortical thickness changes in refractory aggressive behavior patients that were treated with bilateral amygdala ablation and compared to control patients presenting non-refractory aggressive behavior [three refractory and seven non-refractory patients, all males diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disabilities]. The Overt Aggression Scale (OAS) was used to quantify behavior and magnetic resonance imaging was performed to investigate cortical thickness. Before surgery, both groups presented similar total OAS score, however refractory patients presented higher physical aggression against others. After surgery the refractory group showed 88% average reduction of aggressive behavior. Imaging analysis showed that while refractory patients present an overall reduction in cortical thickness compared to non-refractory patients across both timepoints, the local pattern of thickness difference found in areas of the neurocircuitry of aggressive behavior present before surgery is diminished and no longer detected after surgery. These results corroborate the hypotheses on induction of widespread neuronal plasticity following functional neurosurgical procedures resulting in modifications in brain morphology and improvement in behavior. Further studies are necessary to determine the underlying cause of these morphological changes and to better understand and improve treatment options.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".