Classifying youth with bipolar disorder versus healthy youth using cerebral blood flow patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical neuroimaging studies often investigate group differences between patients and controls, yet multivariate imaging features may enable individual-level classification. This study aims to classify youth with bipolar disorder (BD) versus healthy youth using grey matter cerebral blood flow (CBF) data analyzed with logistic regressions. Methods: Using a 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, we collected pseudo-continuous, arterial spin-labelling, resting-state functional MRI (rfMRI) and T1-weighted images from youth with BD and healthy controls. We used 3 logistic regression models to classify youth with BD versus controls, controlling for age and sex, using mean grey matter CBF as a single explanatory variable, quantitative CBF features based on principal component analysis (PCA) or relative (intensity-normalized) CBF features based on PCA. We also carried out a comparison analysis using rfMRI data. Results: The study included 46 patients with BD (mean age 17 yr, standard deviation [SD] 1 yr; 25 females) and 49 healthy controls (mean age 16 yr, SD 2 yr; 24 females). Global mean CBF and multivariate quantitative CBF offered similar classification performance that was above chance. The association between CBF images and the feature map was not significantly different between groups ( p = 0.13); however, the multivariate classifier identified regions with lower CBF among patients with BD (Δ CBF = −2.94 mL/100 g/min; permutation test p = 0047). Classification performance decreased when considering rfMRI data. Limitations: We cannot comment on which CBF principal component is most relevant to the classification. Participants may have had various mood states, comorbidities, demographics and medication records. Conclusion: Brain CBF features can classify youth with BD versus healthy controls with above-chance accuracy using logistic regression. A global CBF feature may offer similar classification performance to distinct multivariate CBF features.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".