Structural covariance network topology in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: the ENIGMA-CHR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain network architecture is anticipated to influence future grey matter loss in individuals at Clinical High Risk (CHR) for psychosis. However, existing studies on grey matter structural network properties in CHR are scarce and constrained by small sample sizes. Here, we examined network topology differences comparing a) CHR versus healthy controls (HC); b) CHR who transitioned to psychosis (CHR-T) versus those who did not (CHR-NT); and c) different subsyndromes. We included structural scans from 1842 CHR individuals and 1417 HC individuals from 31 sites within the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium. At the global level, CHR individuals exhibited lower structural covariance (q < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.164) and less optimal structural network configuration than HC (lower global efficiency and clustering coefficient, d = 0.100,0.087, qs <= 0.027). Though no global difference between CHR-T and CHR-NT, network distinctiveness of the frontal and temporal surface area networks was higher in CHR-T than CHR-NT (d = 0.223,0.237) and HC (d = 0.208,0.219) (qs < 0.001). Network distinctiveness of the frontal cortical thickness network was lower in CHR-T (d = 0.218, q < 0.001) than CHR-NT and HC (d = 0.165, q < 0.001). Importantly, higher network distinctiveness was associated with worse positive symptoms in CHR-NT (frontal surface area, q = 0.008, R 2 = 0.013) and at trend with worse negative symptoms in CHR-T (frontal thickness, q = 0.063, R 2 = 0.049). Further, the brief intermittent psychotic syndrome subgroup showed more severe network alterations. Together, brain structural networks inform symptoms and the risk of transition to psychosis in CHR individuals.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".