Differences in Brain Glucose Metabolism Between Responders to CBT and Venlafaxine in a 16-Week Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Neuroimaging investigations reveal changes in glucose metabolism (fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography [PET]) associated with response to disparate antidepressant treatment modalities, including cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), antidepressant pharmacotherapies, and deep brain stimulation. Using a nonrandomized design, the authors previously compared changes following CBT or paroxetine in depressed patients. In this study, the authors report changes in fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET in responders to CBT or venlafaxine during a randomized controlled trial. Methods Subjects meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for a major depressive episode and a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder received a fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scan before randomization and after 16 weeks of antidepressant treatment with either CBT (N=12) or venlafaxine (N=12). Modality-specific and modality-independent regional brain metabolic changes associated with response status were analyzed. Results: Response rates were comparable between the CBT (7/12) and venlafaxine (9/12) groups. Response to either treatment modality was associated with decreased glucose metabolism bilaterally in the orbitofrontal cortex and left medial prefrontal cortex, along with increased metabolism in the right occipital-temporal cortex. Changes in metabolism in the anterior and posterior parts of the subgenual cingulate cortex and the caudate differentiated CBT and venlafaxine responders. Conclusions: Responders to either treatment modality demonstrated reduced metabolism in several prefrontal regions. Consistent with earlier reports, response to CBT was associated with a reciprocal modulation of cortical-limbic connectivity, while venlafaxine engaged additional cortical and striatal regions previously unreported in neuroimaging investigations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".