Atlas of Gray Matter Volume Differences Across Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review With a Novel Meta-Analysis That Considers Co-Occurring Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional gray matter volume (GMV) differences between individuals with mental disorders and comparison participants may be confounded by co-occurring disorders. To disentangle disorder-specific GMV correlates, we conducted a large-scale multidisorder meta-analysis using a novel approach that explicitly models co-occurring disorders. METHODS: We systematically reviewed voxel-based morphometry studies indexed in PubMed and Scopus up to January 2023 that compared adults with major mental disorders (anorexia nervosa, schizophrenia spectrum, anxiety, bipolar, major depressive, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders plus attention-deficit/hyperactivity, autism spectrum, and borderline personality disorders) with comparison participants. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We derived GMV correlates for each disorder using: 1) a multidisorder meta-analysis that accounted for all co-occurring mental disorders simultaneously and 2) separate standard meta-analyses for each disorder in which co-occurring disorders were ignored. We assessed the alterations' extent, intensity (effect size), and specificity (interdisorder correlations and transdiagnostic alterations) for both approaches. RESULTS: We included 433 studies (499 datasets) involving 19,718 patients and 16,441 comparison participants (51% female, ages 20-67 years). We provide GMV correlate maps for each disorder using both approaches. The novel approach, which accounted for co-occurring disorders, produced GMV correlates that were more focal and disorder specific (less correlated across disorders and fewer transdiagnostic abnormalities). CONCLUSIONS: This work offers the most comprehensive atlas of GMV correlates across major mental disorders. Modeling co-occurring disorders yielded more specific correlates, supporting this approach's validity. The atlas NIfTI maps are available online.
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 | 0.022 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".