Identifying and validating subtypes within major psychiatric disorders based on frontal–posterior functional imbalance via deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Converging evidence increasingly implicates shared etiologic and pathophysiological characteristics among major psychiatric disorders (MPDs), such as schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Examining the neurobiology of the psychotic-affective spectrum may greatly advance biological determination of psychiatric diagnosis, which is critical for the development of more effective treatments. In this study, ensemble clustering was developed to identify subtypes within a trans-diagnostic sample of MPDs. Whole brain amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) was used to extract the low-dimensional features for clustering in a total of 944 participants: 581 psychiatric patients (193 with SZ, 171 with BD, and 217 with MDD) and 363 healthy controls (HC). We identified two subtypes with differentiating patterns of functional imbalance between frontal and posterior brain regions, as compared to HC: (1) Archetypal MPDs (60% of MPDs) had increased frontal and decreased posterior ALFF, and decreased cortical thickness and white matter integrity in multiple brain regions that were associated with increased polygenic risk scores and enriched risk gene expression in brain tissues; (2) Atypical MPDs (40% of MPDs) had decreased frontal and increased posterior ALFF with no associated alterations in validity measures. Medicated Archetypal MPDs had lower symptom severity than their unmedicated counterparts; whereas medicated and unmedicated Atypical MPDs had no differences in symptom scores. Our findings suggest that frontal versus posterior functional imbalance as measured by ALFF is a novel putative trans-diagnostic biomarker differentiating subtypes of MPDs that could have implications for precision medicine.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".