Diagnosis of bipolar disorders and body mass index predict clustering based on similarities in cortical thickness—ENIGMA study in 2436 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Rates of obesity have reached epidemic proportions, especially among people with psychiatric disorders. While the effects of obesity on the brain are of major interest in medicine, they remain markedly under-researched in psychiatry. METHODS: We obtained body mass index (BMI) and magnetic resonance imaging-derived regional cortical thickness, surface area from 836 bipolar disorders (BD) and 1600 control individuals from 14 sites within the ENIGMA-BD Working Group. We identified regionally specific profiles of cortical thickness using K-means clustering and studied clinical characteristics associated with individual cortical profiles. RESULTS: We detected two clusters based on similarities among participants in cortical thickness. The lower thickness cluster (46.8% of the sample) showed thinner cortex, especially in the frontal and temporal lobes and was associated with diagnosis of BD, higher BMI, and older age. BD individuals in the low thickness cluster were more likely to have the diagnosis of bipolar disorder I and less likely to be treated with lithium. In contrast, clustering based on similarities in the cortical surface area was unrelated to BD or BMI and only tracked age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that both BD and obesity are associated with similar alterations in cortical thickness, but not surface area. The fact that obesity increased the chance of having low cortical thickness could explain differences in cortical measures among people with BD. The thinner cortex in individuals with higher BMI, which was additive and similar to the BD-associated alterations, may suggest that treating obesity could lower the extent of cortical thinning in BD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".