Transdiagnostic structural neuroimaging features in depression and psychosis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that there may be similarities in structural brain changes seen in patients with depression and psychosis compared to healthy controls. However, there is yet no systematic review collating studies comparing structural brain changes in depression and psychosis. Establishing shared and specific neuroanatomical features could aid the investigation of underlying biological processes. AIMS: To identify structural neuroimaging similarities and differences between patients with depression and psychosis. METHOD: We searched PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, NICE Evidence, Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 30/06/2021 using relevant subject headings (controlled vocabularies) and search syntax. Papers were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five-hundred and twenty papers were retrieved, seven met inclusion criteria. In narrative collation of results, grey matter volume (GMV) reductions were found in the medial frontal gyrus (MFG), hippocampus and left-sided posterior subgenual prefrontal cortex in both psychosis and depression. GMV reductions affected more brain regions in psychosis, including in the insula and thalamus. White matter volume (WMV) decline was found in both depression and psychosis. Reduced fractional anisotropy (FA) was more commonly seen in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest potential transdiagnostic patterns of GMV and WMV reductions in areas including the MFG, hippocampus, and left-sided posterior subgenual prefrontal cortex. These could be investigated as a future biomarker of transdiagnostic signature across mental illnesses. However, due to the limited number and poor quality of studies future research in large samples and harmonised imaging data is first needed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".