Comparing adaptive coding of reward in bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in neural processing of reward have been described in both bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ), but it remains unclear to what extent these deficits are caused by similar mechanisms. Efficient reward processing relies on adaptive coding which allows representing large input spans by limited neuronal encoding ranges. Deficits in adaptive coding of reward have previously been observed across the SZ spectrum and correlated with total symptom severity. In the present work, we sought to establish whether adaptive coding is similarly affected in patients with BD. Twenty-five patients with BD, 27 patients with SZ and 25 healthy controls performed a variant of the Monetary Incentive Delay task during functional magnetic resonance imaging in two reward range conditions. Adaptive coding was impaired in the posterior part of the right caudate in BD and SZ (trend level). In contrast, BD did not show impaired adaptive coding in the anterior caudate and right precentral gyrus/insula, where SZ showed deficits compared to healthy controls. BD patients show adaptive coding deficits that are similar to those observed in SZ in the right posterior caudate. Adaptive coding in BD appeared more preserved as compared to SZ participants especially in the more anterior part of the right caudate and to a lesser extent also in the right precentral gyrus. Thus, dysfunctional adaptive coding could constitute a fundamental deficit in severe mental illnesses that extends beyond the SZ spectrum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".