Cited by 28Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Regional brain metabolic correlates of self-reported depression severity contrasted with clinician ratings

Open access
Milak, Matthew S., Keilp, John, Parsey, Ramin V., Oquendo, Maria A., Malone, Kevin M., Mann, J. John·2010·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background We compared brain-map correlations of relative cerebral glucose metabolism (rCMRglu) with psychopathologic factors derived from the self-rated Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and factors from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) factors, seeking an anatomic basis for differences in self and clinician ratings.Methods [(18)F]-FDG Positron Emission Tomography generated rCMRglu, SPM-estimated, voxel-level, brain correlation maps with BDI factor scores and HDRS factor scores in medication-free major depressive disorder.Results Regional brain correlates of BDI are more extensive than HDRS, even when adjusting for variance accounted for by the HDRS. Factors comprising the BDI were associated with distinct cortical and subcortical regions. The degree of overlap in factor correlation brain maps is explained by the variance shared by BDI and HDRS factor scores.Conclusion Self and clinician-rated aspects of depression have common and distinct neuroanatomic correlates that reflect correlations between rating scales, but correlations between glucose metabolism and self-rated depression were anatomically more extensive in this sample. Findings highlight the importance and biological underpinnings of these subjective features of major depression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2010.03.002

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Structural and functional deficits in dmPFC, dlPFC, vlPFC, and dACC correlate with subjective depression severity and contribute to less top-down control over vmPFC regions, leading to impaired decision making and suicidal behavior.

    “2) structural and functional deficits in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC), and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) that correlate with severity of subjective depression (66) and contribute to less top-down control over vmPFC regions, resulting in impaired decision making and, in turn, suicidal behavior (”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [66]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mayberg HS Liotti M Brannan SK McGinnis S Mahurin RK Jerabek PA Silva JA Tekell JL Martin CC Lancaster JL Fox PT Reciprocal limbic-cortical function and negative mood: converging PET findings in depression and normal sadness Am. J. Psychiatry 1999b 156 675 682 10327898

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milak, M. S., Keilp, J., Parsey, R. V., Oquendo, M. A., Malone, K. M., & Mann, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Milak, Matthew S.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
126
Issue
1-2
Pages
113-124
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971907805
Cited by
28
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 62185, R01MH040695, R01MH048514, MH 40695, P50MH062185)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 00645, M01RR000645)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
major depressive disorder, depression severity, self-rated depression, Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, FDG-PET, cortical and subcortical regions
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebellum, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Glucose, Gyrus Cinguli, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Occipital Lobe, Parietal Lobe, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Temporal Lobe, Prefrontal Cortex, Positron-Emission Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review