MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating Multimodal Neuroimaging of Error Monitoring to Estimate Future Anxiety in Adolescents

2025· article· en· W4415478473 on OpenAlexaff
Emilio A. Valadez, Stefania Conte, John E. Richards, Yi Feng, Lucrezia Liuzzi, Marco McSweeney, Enda Tan, George A. Buzzell, Santiago Morales, Anderson M. Winkler, Elise M. Cardinale, Lauren K. White, Daniel S. Pine, Nathan A. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnxietyNeuroimagingModality (human–computer interaction)ElectroencephalographyTemperamentCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and associated with heightened error monitoring, the detection of one's mistakes. However, error monitoring, anxiety, and their associations change throughout adolescence, limiting the ability to estimate future anxiety trajectories during this period. Objective: To ascertain whether measures of error monitoring obtained via the integration of electroencephalogram (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) improve estimations of future anxiety compared with EEG or fMRI alone, in adolescents with or without a history of behaviorally inhibited temperament. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted at a university research laboratory and government research hospital. Study assessments took place between January 2014 and July 2019, and data analyses were completed in January 2025. A community sample of infants completed a laboratory screening at age 4 months. A subset of these infants was oversampled to maximize variability of early temperament and followed up throughout adolescence. At ages 13 and 15 years, participants completed a flanker task during an EEG session and separate fMRI session. Brain activity at age 13 years and its change from 13 to 15 years of age were evaluated as potential risk factors for anxiety. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in anxiety from age 13 to 15 years as measured using clinical interviews and questionnaires. Hypotheses were formulated after data collection. Results: Analyses included 176 adolescents with neuroimaging data (92 females at birth [52.3%]; 5 Asian individuals [2.8%], 21 Black or African American individuals [11.9%], 11 Hispanic or Latino individuals [6.3%], 133 White individuals [75.6%], and 6 individuals of other [3.4%] race and ethnicity). Among neural variables (EEG-only, fMRI-only, and EEG-fMRI fusion), only the EEG-fMRI fusion scores explained additional variance in anxiety change scores (change in R2 = 0.25; P = .001) beyond demographics (sex, racial and ethnic minority status) and anxiety at age 13 years. Planned follow-up analyses revealed that early temperament interacted with dorsal anterior cingulate activity at age 13 years (β = 0.40; B = 8.77; 95% CI, 0.74-16.79; P = .03) and with changes in posterior cingulate activity (β = -0.42; B = -16.89; 95% CI, -28.21 to -5.57; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that integrating multimodal neuroimaging measures of error monitoring was associated with improved estimations of future anxiety in youths over and above each modality separately. Early temperament interacted with error monitoring to further differentiate anxiety trajectories; yet, these interactions differed across brain regions, highlighting the value of incorporating the complementary temporal and spatial information of EEG and fMRI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207