MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363645305 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010986

In-silico EEG biomarkers of reduced inhibition in human cortical microcircuits in depression

2023· article· en· W4363645305 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Mazza, Alexandre Guet-McCreight, Taufik A. Valiante, John D. Griffiths, Etay Hay

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Brain InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersKrembil FoundationUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIn silicoElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceDepression (economics)Human brainComputational biologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduced cortical inhibition by somatostatin-expressing (SST) interneurons has been strongly associated with treatment-resistant depression. However, due to technical limitations it is impossible to establish experimentally in humans whether the effects of reduced SST interneuron inhibition on microcircuit activity have signatures detectable in clinically-relevant brain signals such as electroencephalography (EEG). To overcome these limitations, we simulated resting-state activity and EEG using detailed models of human cortical microcircuits with normal (healthy) or reduced SST interneuron inhibition (depression), and found that depression microcircuits exhibited increased theta, alpha and low beta power (4-16 Hz). The changes in depression involved a combination of an aperiodic broadband and periodic theta components. We then demonstrated the specificity of the EEG signatures of reduced SST interneuron inhibition by showing they were distinct from those corresponding to reduced parvalbumin-expressing (PV) interneuron inhibition. Our study thus links SST interneuron inhibition level to distinct features in EEG simulated from detailed human microcircuits, which can serve to better identify mechanistic subtypes of depression using EEG, and non-invasively monitor modulation of cortical inhibition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207