An exploratory study of functional brain activation underlying response inhibition in major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive control is associated with impulsive and harmful behaviours, such as substance abuse and suicidal behaviours, as well as major depressive disorder (MDD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD). The association between MDD and BPD is partially explained by shared pathological personality traits, which may be underpinned by aspects of cognitive control, such as response inhibition. The neural basis of response inhibition in MDD and BPD is not fully understood and could illuminate factors that differentiate between the disorders and that underlie individual differences in cross-cutting pathological traits. In this study, we sought to explore the neural correlates of response inhibition in MDD and BPD, as well as the pathological personality trait domains contained in the ICD-11 personality disorder model. We measured functional brain activity underlying response inhibition on a Go/No-Go task using functional magnetic resonance imaging in 55 female participants recruited into three groups: MDD without comorbid BPD (n = 16), MDD and comorbid BPD (n = 18), and controls with neither disorder (n = 21). Whereas response-inhibition-related activation was observed bilaterally in frontoparietal cognitive control regions across groups, there were no group differences in activation or significant associations between activation in regions-of-interest and pathological personality traits. The findings highlight potential shared neurobiological substrates across diagnoses and suggest that the associations between individual differences in neural activation and pathological personality traits may be small in magnitude. Sufficiently powered studies are needed to elucidate the associations between the functional neural correlates of response inhibition and pathological personality trait domains.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".