Association between body mass index and subcortical brain volumes in bipolar disorders–ENIGMA study in 2735 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals with bipolar disorders (BD) frequently suffer from obesity, which is often associated with neurostructural alterations. Yet, the effects of obesity on brain structure in BD are under-researched. We obtained MRI-derived brain subcortical volumes and body mass index (BMI) from 1134 BD and 1601 control individuals from 17 independent research sites within the ENIGMA-BD Working Group. We jointly modeled the effects of BD and BMI on subcortical volumes using mixed-effects modeling and tested for mediation of group differences by obesity using nonparametric bootstrapping. All models controlled for age, sex, hemisphere, total intracranial volume, and data collection site. Relative to controls, individuals with BD had significantly higher BMI, larger lateral ventricular volume, and smaller volumes of amygdala, hippocampus, pallidum, caudate, and thalamus. BMI was positively associated with ventricular and amygdala and negatively with pallidal volumes. When analyzed jointly, both BD and BMI remained associated with volumes of lateral ventricles and amygdala. Adjusting for BMI decreased the BD vs control differences in ventricular volume. Specifically, 18.41% of the association between BD and ventricular volume was mediated by BMI ( Z = 2.73, p = 0.006). BMI was associated with similar regional brain volumes as BD, including lateral ventricles, amygdala, and pallidum. Higher BMI may in part account for larger ventricles, one of the most replicated findings in BD. Comorbidity with obesity could explain why neurostructural alterations are more pronounced in some individuals with BD. Future prospective brain imaging studies should investigate whether obesity could be a modifiable risk factor for neuroprogression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".