MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404796768 · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.11.073

Loudness dependent auditory evoked potentials and suicidality in depression – A meta-analysis with replication in unmedicated patients

2024· review· en· W4404796768 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josephine M Tyron, Cheng-Teng Ip, Martin Balslev Jørgensen, Kristian H. R. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SRegion HovedstadenUniversidade de MacauLundbeckfondenInnovationsfonden
KeywordsLoudnessDepression (economics)AudiologyPsychologyReplication (statistics)Suicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a risk factor for suicide. Loudness-Dependent Auditory Evoked Potentials (LDAEP) is an electroencephalographic biomarker of central serotonergic activity associated with MDD and suicidality. Yet, studies on the matter are conflicting. We therefore: 1) Conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the relation between LDAEP, past suicide attempts and current suicidality in MDD, and 2) replicated the findings in independent data of unmedicated patients with MDD. METHODOLOGY: 1) 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The difference in scalp LDAEP between patients with and without past suicide attempts was estimated using Hedge's g. The correlation between scalp LDAEP and suicidality was estimated using Fisher's Zr. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodological differences. The review was preregistered (PROSPERO). 2) We examined the associations above within an independent cohort of 88 unmedicated patients with MDD. The analyses were preregistered (AsPredicted.org) and used to update the meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the initial meta-analysis, scalp LDAEP was not associated with past suicide attempts (g = 0.11 [-0.23, 0.46], p = 0.53) or correlated with suicidality (Zr = 0.06 [-0.15, 0.27], p = 0.60). In the independent cohort, scalp LDAEP was also not associated with past suicide attempts (g = 0.05 [-0.56, 0.65] t(86) = 0.15, p = 0.88) or correlated with suicidality (Zr = 0.11 [-0.1, 0.33] r = 0.11 [-0.10, 0.32], p = 0.30). In the updated meta-analysis, scalp LDAEP continued not to be associated with suicide attempts (g = 0.10 [-0.19, 0.39], p = 0.51) or suicidality (Zr = 0.06 [-0.12, 0.24], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: LDAEP is not associated with past suicide attempts or suicidality in MDD, and LDAEP's usefulness in suicide prevention seems limited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.033
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective DisordersSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207