MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133039496

Neuroimaging and Reward Processing in Major Depressive Disorder and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2022· dissertation· W7133039496 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda Kristina Ceniti

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAnhedoniaMajor depressive disorderNeuroimagingTraumatic brain injuryComorbidityFunctional neuroimagingConcussionReward system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common and disabling condition experienced by 20-45% of individuals who have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The comorbidity of MDD and mTBI is associated with cumulatively worse outcomes, yet its neurobiological and behavioural presentation remains poorly understood. Importantly, while most literature has evaluated TBI groups with varying depressive symptom levels, scant research has investigated the impact of mTBI history among those with MDD. The current research sought to clarify this interaction with a focus on anhedonia and its underlying reward system, which are central to MDD and have preliminary evidence of disruption in mTBI. The substantial overlap in frontotemporal and limbic brain regions implicated in MDD, mTBI, and reward, combined with previous neuroimaging and reward findings in each condition separately, suggest a cumulative impact. Thus, the goals of the present studies were to understand the impact of mTBI history on resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) and cortical thickness among those with MDD, and assess the combined impact of MDD and mTBI on anhedonia and reward function. Four participant groups were recruited across two studies: (1) MDD-alone, (2) mTBI-alone, (3) MDD+mTBI, and (4) healthy control participants. Together, clinical and neuroimaging findings converged to suggest that MDD is the main contributor to the interaction between MDD and mTBI, with significant differences observed between those with and without MDD, but limited separation by mTBI history. Subtle differences between MDD-alone and MDD+mTBI groups emerged, with altered sgACC-precuneus connectivity and more intact reward learning among MDD+mTBI participants, as well as trends toward altered cortical thickness in temporal regions. However, mTBI history within MDD was not associated with large-scale network differences in this cohort. In the present sample, we also found no evidence of differences in reward valuation, motivation, or response bias based on MDD or mTBI history. This work is the first to report the impact of mTBI history on RSFC and cortical thickness among those with MDD, as well as reward outcomes in MDD+mTBI versus either alone. Findings strongly support inclusion of MDD-alone groups in future studies of TBI and depression given its substantial impact on this interaction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→