A systematic review of structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies on the neurobiology of depressive symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depressive symptoms in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSDs) negatively impact suicidality, prognosis, and quality of life. Despite this, efficacious treatments are limited, largely because the neural mechanisms underlying depressive symptoms in SSDs remain poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of studies that investigated the neural correlates of depressive symptoms in SSDs using neuroimaging techniques. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through June 19, 2023. Specifically, we focused on structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), encompassing: (1) T1-weighted imaging measuring brain morphology; (2) diffusion-weighted imaging assessing white matter integrity; or (3) T2*-weighted imaging measures of brain function. Our search yielded 33 articles; 14 structural MRI studies, 18 functional (f)MRI studies, and 1 multimodal fMRI/MRI study. Reviewed studies indicate potential commonalities in the neurobiology of depressive symptoms between SSDs and major depressive disorders, particularly in subcortical and frontal brain regions, though confidence in this interpretation is limited. The review underscores a notable knowledge gap in our understanding of the neurobiology of depression in SSDs, marked by inconsistent approaches and few studies examining imaging metrics of depressive symptoms. Inconsistencies across studies' findings emphasize the necessity for more direct and comprehensive research focusing on the neurobiology of depression in SSDs. Future studies should go beyond "total score" depression metrics and adopt more nuanced assessment approaches considering distinct subdomains. This could reveal unique neurobiological profiles and inform investigations of targeted treatments for depression in SSDs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".