Hippocampal and amygdala subfield volumes in obsessive–compulsive disorder by medication status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although it has been suggested that the hippocampus and amygdala (HA) are involved in the neurobiology of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), volumetric findings have been inconsistent, and little work has been undertaken on the volumetry of the heterogeneous anatomic units of HA, with their specific functions and cytoarchitecture, in OCD. We sought to explore potential sources of heterogeneity in brain volumes by performing a separate analysis for people with and without psychotropic medication use, as well as the association of subfield volumes with OCD symptom severity. Methods: We segmented T 1 -weighted images from people with OCD and healthy controls in the OCD Brain Imaging Consortium to produce 12 hippocampal subfields and 9 amygdala subfields using Free-Surfer 6.0. We assessed between-group differences in subfield volume using a mixed-effects model adjusted for age and quadratic effects of age, sex, site, and whole HA volume. We also performed subgroup analyses to examine subfield volume in relation to comorbid anxiety and depression, medication status, and symptom severity. We corrected all analyses for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR). Results: We included images from 381 people with OCD and 338 healthy controls. These groups did not significantly differ in HA subfield volumes. However, medicated people with OCD had significantly smaller volumes in the hippocampal dentate gyrus ( p FDR = 0.04, d = −0.26) and molecular layer ( p FDR = 0.04, d = −0.29), and larger volumes in the lateral ( p FDR = 0.049, d = 0.23) and basal ( p FDR = 0.049, d = 0.25) amygdala subfields, than healthy controls. Unmedicated people with OCD had significantly smaller volumes in the hippocampal cornu ammonis sector 1 ( p FDR = 0.02, d = −0.28) than controls. We did not detect associations between any subfield volume and OCD severity. Limitations: We used cross-sectional data, which limits the interpretation of our analysis. Conclusion: Differences in HA subfields between people with OCD and healthy controls are dependent on medication status, in line with previous work on other brain volumetric alterations in OCD. This emphasizes the importance of considering psychotropic medication in neuroimaging studies of OCD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".