Cerebello-cerebral Functional Connectivity Networks in Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND-1 Study Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Neuroimaging studies have demonstrated aberrant structure and function of the “cognitive-affective cerebellum” in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), although the specific role of the cerebello-cerebral circuitry in this population remains largely uninvestigated. The objective of this study was to delineate the role of cerebellar functional networks in depression. Methods A total of 308 unmedicated participants completed resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging scans, of which 247 (148 MDD; 99 Healthy Controls, HC) were suitable for this study. Seed-based resting-state functional connectivity (RsFc) analysis was performed using three cerebellar regions of interest (ROIs): ROI 1 corresponded to default mode network (DMN) / inattentive processing; ROI 2 corresponded to attentional networks including frontoparietal, dorsal attention, and ventral attention; ROI 3 corresponded to motor processing. These ROIs were delineated based on prior functional gradient analyses of the cerebellum. A general linear model was used to perform within-group and between-group comparisons. Results In comparison to HC, participants with MDD displayed increased RsFc within the cerebello-cerebral DMN (ROI 1 ) and significantly elevated RsFc between the cerebellar ROI 1 and bilateral angular gyrus at a voxel threshold ( p < 0.001, two-tailed) and at a cluster level ( p < 0.05, FDR-corrected). Group differences were non-significant for ROI 2 and ROI 3 . Conclusions These results contribute to the development of a systems neuroscience approach to the diagnosis and treatment of MDD. Specifically, our findings confirm previously reported associations between MDD, DMN, and cerebellum, and highlight the promising role of these functional and anatomical locations for the development of novel imaging-based biomarkers and targets for neuromodulation therapies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".