MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306732270 · doi:10.1111/psyp.14193

Pathways to depression: Dynamic associations between neural responses to appetitive cues in the environment, stress, and the development of illness

2022· review· en· W4306732270 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Weinberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPsychologyDepression (economics)InterdependenceVulnerability (computing)Depressive symptomsNeural correlates of consciousnessEvent-related potentialClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review focuses on research my colleagues and I have conducted on etiological pathways to depression. Much of this work has focused on the measurement of neural responses to appetitive cues, using two event-related brain potential (ERP) components, the Late Positive Potential (LPP) and the Reward Positivity (RewP). Reductions in each of these components have been associated with current symptoms of depression, and in some cases have been shown to differentiate anxious from depressive phenotypes. In this review, I will describe three broad and related approaches we have taken in our research to address a series of interdependent issuess. The first attempts to understand different sources of variation in the LPP and RewP, and how these sources interact with one another. The second tries to identify whether variation in the processes measured by these ERP components might reflect a latent vulnerability to depression and its symptoms, that is evident prior to illness onset. And the third examines the possibility that the processes reflected in the LPP and RewP might play a mechanistic role in the development of depression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207