Neural Circuitry Engaged During Unsuccessful Motor Inhibition in Pediatric Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Deficits in motor inhibition may contribute to impulsivity and irritability in children with bipolar disorder (BPD). Therefore, studies of the neural circuitry engaged during failed motor inhibition in pediatric BPD may contribute to our understanding of the pathophysiology of the illness. We tested the hypothesis that children with BPD and controls would differ in ventral prefrontal cortex (vPFC), striatal, and anterior cingulate activation during unsuccessful motor inhibition. We also compared activation in medicated vs. unmedicated children with BPD, and in children with BPD and ADHD (BPD+ADHD) vs. those with BPD but without ADHD (BPD-ADHD). Method: Event-related fMRI study comparing neural activation in children with BPD and controls while they performed a motor inhibition task. The sample included 26 children with BPD (13 unmedicated, 15 with ADHD) and 17 age, gender, and IQ matched controls. Results: On failed inhibitory trials, controls showed greater bilateral striatal and right vPFC activation than did patients. While our findings were somewhat more prominent in unmedicated than medicated, patients, and in BPD+ADHD than BPD-ADHD, the findings did not differ significantly (?) among these subgroups of children with BPD. Conclusions: Compared to controls, children with BPD may have deficits in their ability to engage striatal structures and right vPFC during unsuccessful inhibition. (this reads confusingly to me—they’re deficient in their capacity to engage structures when they’re behaviorally unsuccessful? Perhaps reword?) Further research is needed to determine whether these deficits play a role in the emotional and behavioral dysregulation characteristic of BPD.
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) | 0.000 | 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".