Associations Between Structural Covariance Network and Antipsychotic Treatment Response in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Schizophrenia is associated with widespread cortical thinning and abnormality in the structural covariance network, which may reflect connectome alterations due to treatment effect or disease progression. Notably, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) have stronger and more widespread cortical thinning, but it remains unclear whether structural covariance is associated with treatment response in schizophrenia. STUDY DESIGN: We organized a multicenter magnetic resonance imaging study to assess structural covariance in a large population of TRS and non-TRS, who had been resistant and responsive to non-clozapine antipsychotics, respectively. Whole-brain structural covariance for cortical thickness was assessed in 102 patients with TRS, 77 patients with non-TRS, and 79 healthy controls (HC). Network-based statistics were used to examine the difference in structural covariance networks among the 3 groups. Moreover, the relationship between altered individual differentiated structural covariance and clinico-demographics was also explored. STUDY RESULTS: Patients with non-TRS exhibited greater structural covariance compared with HC, mainly in the fronto-temporal and fronto-occipital regions, while there were no significant differences in structural covariance between TRS and non-TRS or HC. Higher individual differentiated structural covariance was associated with lower general scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in the non-TRS group, but not in the TRS group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that reconfiguration of brain networks via coordinated cortical thinning is related to treatment response in schizophrenia. Further longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm if greater structural covariance could serve as a marker for treatment response in this disease.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".