The centrality of working memory networks in differentiating bipolar type I depression from unipolar depression: A task-fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Up to 70%-80% of patients with bipolar disorder are misdiagnosed as having major depressive disorder (MDD), leading to both delayed intervention and worsening disability. Differences in the cognitive neurophysiology may serve to distinguish between the depressive phase of type 1 bipolar disorder (BDD-I) from MDD, though this remains to be demonstrated. To this end, we investigate the discriminatory signal in the topological organization of the functional connectome during a working memory (WM) task in BDD-I and MDD, as a candidate identification approach. METHODS: We calculated and compared the degree centrality (DC) at the whole-brain voxel-wise level in 31 patients with BDD-I, 35 patients with MDD, and 80 healthy controls (HCs) during an n-back task. We further extracted the distinct DC patterns in the two patient groups under different WM loads and used machine learning approaches to determine the distinguishing ability of the DC map. RESULTS: Patients with BDD-I had lower accuracy and longer reaction time (RT) than HCs at high WM loads. BDD-I is characterized by decreased DC in the default mode network (DMN) and the sensorimotor network (SMN) when facing high WM load. In contrast, MDD is characterized by increased DC in the DMN during high WM load. Higher WM load resulted in better classification performance, with the distinct aberrant DC maps under 2-back load discriminating the two disorders with 90.91% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The distributed brain connectivity during high WM load provides novel insights into the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment of depression. This could potentially distinguish BDD-I from MDD if replicated in future large-scale evaluations of first-episode depression with longitudinal confirmation of diagnostic transition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".