MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214636696 · doi:10.1503/jpn.210144

Differences in subcortical brain volumes among patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and healthy controls

2022· article· en· W4214636696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kazutaka Ohi, Miori Ishibashi, Kaai Torii, Mayuka Hashimoto, Yurika Yano, Toshiki Shioiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKanazawa Medical UniversityKanazawa University
KeywordsBipolar disorderPutamenGlobus pallidusSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)ThalamusPsychologyAmygdalaBipolar I disorderNeurosciencePsychosisCaudate nucleusBasal gangliaMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatryManiaCentral nervous systemCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an overlapping polygenic architecture and clinical similarities, although the 2 disorders are distinct diagnoses with clinical dissimilarities. It remains unclear whether there are specific differences in subcortical volumes between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and whether the subcortical differences are affected by any clinical characteristics. We investigated differences in subcortical volumes bilaterally among patients with schizophrenia, patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls. We also investigated the influences of clinical characteristics on specific subcortical volumes in these patient groups. Methods: We collected 3 T T1-weighted MRI brain scans from 413 participants (157 with schizophrenia, 51 with bipolar disorder and 205 controls) with a single scanner at a single institute. We used FreeSurfer version 6.0 for processing the T1-weighted images to segment the following subcortical brain volumes: thalamus, caudate, putamen, globus pallidus, hippocampus, amygdala and nucleus accumbens. Differences in the 7 subcortical volumes were investigated among the groups. We also evaluated correlations between subcortical volumes and clinical variables in these patient groups. Results: Of 7 subcortical regions, patients with schizophrenia had significantly smaller volumes in the left thalamus (Cohen d = −0.29, p = 5.83 × 10−3), bilateral hippocampi (left, d = −0.36, p = 8.85 × 10−4; right, d = −0.41, p = 1.15 × 10−4) and left amygdala ( d = −0.31, p = 4.02 × 10−3) than controls. Compared with controls, patients with bipolar disorder had bilateral reductions only in the hippocampal volumes (left, d = −0.52, p = 1.12 × 10−3; right, d = −0.58, p = 0.30 × 10−4). We also found that patients with schizophrenia had significantly smaller volumes in the bilateral amygdalae (left, d = −0.43, p = 4.22 × 10−3; right, d = −0.45, p = 4.56 × 10−3) than patients with bipolar disorder. We did not find any significant volumetric differences in the other 6 subcortical structures between patient groups ( p > 0.05). Smaller left amygdalar volumes were significantly correlated with younger onset age only in patients with schizophrenia ( r = 0.22, p = 5.78 × 10−3). Limitations: We did not evaluate the differences in subcortical volumes between patients stratified based on clinical bipolar disorder subtype and a history of psychotic episodes because our sample size of patients with bipolar disorder was limited. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that volumetric differences in the amygdala between patients with schizophrenia and those with bipolar disorder may be a putative biomarker for distinguishing 2 clinically similar diagnoses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207