MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415881886 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.02.25339336

Brain morphology mediators of the link between childhood trauma and bipolar disorder: a large-scale international analysis

2025· preprint· en· W4415881886 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo Tozzi, Maria R. Dauvermann, Emma Corley, Andrea Fernandes, Melody J.Y. Kang, Yanghee Im, Leila Nabulsi, Roberto Goya‐Maldonado, Marco Hermesdorf, Hilary P. Blumberg, Lejla Čolić, Tamsyn E. Van Rheenen, Elysha Ringin, Susan L. Rossell, James A. Karantonis, Lisa S. Furlong, Tilo Kircher, Frederike Stein, Udo Dannlowski, Dominik Grotegerd, Jair C. Soares, Mon‐Ju Wu, Giovana Zunta‐Soares, Benson Mwangi, Joaquim Raduà, Enric Vilajosana, Eduard Vieta, Melissa J. Green, Émilie Olié, Guillaume Clain, Francesco Benedetti, Elisa Melloni, B. Bravi, Delfina Janiri, Daniela Vecchio, Fabrizio Piras, Nerisa Banaj, Gabriele Sani, Gloria Roberts, Janice M. Fullerton, Bronwyn J. Overs, Philip B. Mitchell, Jonathan Savitz, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Josselin Houenou, Marion Leboyer, Amanda Rodrigue, David C. Glahn, Sophia I. Thomopoulos, Neda Jahanshad, Paul M. Thompson, Ole A. Andreassen, Christopher R. K. Ching, Dara M. Cannon, Yann Quidé

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleSwinburne University of TechnologyAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Imaging FacilityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungHealth Research BoardDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMedical Research CouncilFondation de l'Avenir pour la Recherche Médicale AppliquéeNational Institutes of HealthYale University
KeywordsBipolar disorderOrbitofrontal cortexBrain morphometryCTQ treeInferior frontal gyrusNeuroimagingTraumatic brain injurySuperior frontal gyrusChild abuse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood trauma is a risk factor for bipolar disorder, but the biological mechanisms of this association remain incompletely defined. Gray matter differences observed after trauma exposure overlap with those reported in bipolar disorder, suggesting that the association between childhood trauma and bipolar disorder might be mediated through brain morphology. Our goal was to determine whether cortical thickness, cortical surface or subcortical volume mediate the association between childhood trauma and bipolar disorder. We leveraged a large multi-site dataset from the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group, comprising of 1,031 participants with bipolar disorder and 2,221 controls from 19 international cohorts. To identify brain morphology mediators of the association of childhood trauma and bipolar disorder, we used high-dimensional mediation analysis and validated our results using leave-one-site-out cross-validation and permutation testing for significance. Severity of childhood trauma was directly associated with higher likelihood of having a bipolar disorder diagnosis (median coefficient 0.841, 95% CI: [0.834, 0.851], p<0.001). Significant mediators were hippocampal volume (0.004, 95% CI: [0.002, 0.005], p<0.001), medial orbitofrontal gray matter thickness (0.002, 95% CI: [0.002, 0.003], p<0.001), and superior frontal gyrus gray matter thickness (0.002, 95% CI: [0, 0.005], p<0.001). Our results show that the severity of childhood trauma exposure is associated with bipolar disorder diagnosis in part through a smaller hippocampus, thinner cortex in the medial orbitofrontal gyrus and thinner cortex in the superior frontal gyrus. The identification of this mechanistic pathway improves our etiologic understanding of bipolar disorder and could help to identify those at risk and enable the development of new interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→