Enlarged pituitary gland volume: a possible state rather than trait marker of psychotic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Enlarged pituitary gland volume could be a marker of psychotic disorders. However, previous studies report conflicting results. To better understand the role of the pituitary gland in psychosis, we examined a large transdiagnostic sample of individuals with psychotic disorders. Methods The study included 751 participants (174 with schizophrenia, 114 with schizoaffective disorder, 167 with psychotic bipolar disorder, and 296 healthy controls) across six sites in the Bipolar-Schizophrenia Network on Intermediate Phenotypes consortium. Structural magnetic resonance images were obtained, and pituitary gland volumes were measured using the MAGeT brain algorithm. Linear mixed models examined between-group differences with controls and among patient subgroups based on diagnosis, as well as how pituitary volumes were associated with symptom severity, cognitive function, antipsychotic dose, and illness duration. Results Mean pituitary gland volume did not significantly differ between patients and controls. No significant effect of diagnosis was observed. Larger pituitary gland volume was associated with greater symptom severity (F = 13.61, p = 0.0002), lower cognitive function (F = 4.76, p = 0.03), and higher antipsychotic dose (F = 5.20, p = 0.02). Illness duration was not significantly associated with pituitary gland volume. When all variables were considered, only symptom severity significantly predicted pituitary gland volume (F = 7.54, p = 0.006). Conclusions Although pituitary volumes were not increased in psychotic disorders, larger size may be a marker associated with more severe symptoms in the progression of psychosis. This finding helps clarify previous inconsistent reports and highlights the need for further research into pituitary gland-related factors in individuals with psychosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".