Clinical and cortical similarities identified between bipolar disorder I and schizophrenia: A multivariate approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Structural neuroimaging studies have identified similarities in the brains of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar I disorder (BP), with overlap in regions of gray matter (GM) deficits between the two disorders. Recent studies have also shown that the symptom phenotypes associated with SZ and BP may allow for a more precise categorization than the current diagnostic criteria. In this study, we sought to identify GM alterations that were unique to each disorder and whether those alterations were also related to unique symptom profiles. Materials and methods: ∼ 3,000), merged dataset of neuroimaging data from healthy volunteers (HV), and individuals with either SZ or BP. Results: Component A showed a SZ and BP < HV GM pattern in the bilateral insula and cingulate gyrus. Component B showed a SZ and BP < HV GM pattern in the cerebellum and vermis. There were no significant differences between diagnostic groups in these components. Component C showed a SZ < HV and BP GM pattern bilaterally in the temporal poles. Hierarchical clustering of the PANSS scores and the ICA components did not yield new subgroups. N-way biclustering identified three unique subgroups of individuals within the sample that mapped onto different combinations of ICA components and symptom profiles categorized by the PANSS but no distinct diagnostic group differences. Conclusion: These multivariate results show that diagnostic boundaries are not clearly related to structural differences or distinct symptom profiles. Our findings add support that (1) BP tend to have less severe symptom profiles when compared to SZ on the PANSS without a clear distinction, and (2) all the gray matter alterations follow the pattern of SZ < BP < HV without a clear distinction between SZ and BP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".