Assessing remission in major depressive disorder using a functional-structural data fusion pipeline: A CAN-BIND-1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural network-level changes underlying symptom remission in major depressive disorder (MDD) are often studied from a single perspective. Multimodal approaches to assess neuropsychiatric disorders are evolving, as they offer richer information about brain networks. A FATCAT-awFC pipeline was developed to integrate a computationally intense data fusion method with a toolbox, to produce a faster and more intuitive pipeline for combining functional connectivity with structural connectivity (denoted as anatomically weighted functional connectivity ( awFC )). Ninety-three participants from the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network for Depression study (CAN-BIND-1) were included. Patients with MDD were treated with 8 weeks of escitalopram and adjunctive aripiprazole for another 8 weeks. Between-group connectivity (SC, FC, awFC ) comparisons contrasted remitters (REM) with non-remitters (NREM) at baseline and 8 weeks. Additionally, a longitudinal study analysis was performed to compare connectivity changes across time for REM, from baseline to week-8. Association between cognitive variables and connectivity were also assessed. REM were distinguished from NREM by lower awFC within the default mode, frontoparietal, and ventral attention networks. Compared to REM at baseline, REM at week-8 revealed increased awFC within the dorsal attention network and decreased awFC within the frontoparietal network. A medium effect size was observed for most results. AwFC in the frontoparietal network was associated with neurocognitive index and cognitive flexibility for the NREM group at week-8. In conclusion, the FATCAT-awFC pipeline has the benefit of providing insight on the ‘full picture' of connectivity changes for REMs and NREMs while making for an easy intuitive approach.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".