Testing the ecophenotype hypothesis: Differences in white matter microstructure in youth with conduct disorder with versus without a history of childhood abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Childhood maltreatment is a key risk factor for conduct disorder (CD), and the “ecophenotype hypothesis” suggests that maltreatment-related versus non-maltreatment-related CD are neurobiologically distinct. This may explain inconsistent findings in previous structural connectivity studies of CD. We tested this hypothesis by comparing youth with CD with (CD/+) versus without (CD/−) childhood physical or sexual abuse in white-matter microstructure. Diffusion tensor imaging data were collected from 100 CD and 169 control participants aged 9–18 years. Using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics, we compared the CD and control groups in fractional anisotropy, and axial, radial and mean diffusivity, then compared the CD/+ ( n = 39) and CD/− ( n = 61) subgroups and controls. The combined CD group had higher fractional anisotropy in the corpus callosum than controls. When divided by abuse history, only the CD/− subgroup exhibited higher corpus callosum fractional anisotropy than controls; the CD/+ subgroup did not differ from controls. Comparing the CD subgroups, the CD/+ subgroup displayed higher superior longitudinal fasciculus axial diffusivity than the CD/− subgroup. Notably, sex-stratified analyses yielded different findings in all-male and all-female samples. Findings support the ecophenotype hypothesis, demonstrating microstructural differences between the CD/+ and CD/− subgroups and emphasizing the importance of considering abuse/maltreatment (and sex) in future studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".