MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220674799 · doi:10.1002/hbm.25851

Threat vigilance and intrinsic amygdala connectivity

2022· article· en· W4220674799 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Alexander Kirk, Avram J. Holmes, Oliver J. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaUniversity College LondonIndependent Electricity System OperatorLeverhulme TrustH. Lundbeck A/SYale University
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)AnxiogenicAmygdalaPsychologyNeuroscienceAnxietyPeriaqueductal grayVentromedial prefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyPrefrontal cortexMidbrainCognitionAnxiolyticPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A well-documented amygdala-dorsomedial prefrontal circuit is theorized to promote attention to threat ("threat vigilance"). Prior research has implicated a relationship between individual differences in trait anxiety/vigilance, engagement of this circuitry, and anxiogenic features of the environment (e.g., through threat-of-shock and movie-watching). In the present study, we predicted that-for those scoring high in self-reported anxiety and a behavioral measure of threat vigilance-this circuitry is chronically engaged, even in the absence of anxiogenic stimuli. Our analyses of resting-state fMRI data (N = 639) did not, however, provide evidence for such a relationship. Nevertheless, in our planned exploratory analyses, we saw a relationship between threat vigilance behavior (but not self-reported anxiety) and intrinsic amygdala-periaqueductal gray connectivity. Here, we suggest this subcortical circuitry may be chronically engaged in hypervigilant individuals, but that amygdala-prefrontal circuitry may only be engaged in response to anxiogenic stimuli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207