ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Neural correlates of repetitive negative thinking: Dimensional evidence across the psychopathological continuum.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of computerized cognitive training to improve working memory in individuals with elevated repetitive negative thinking: Behavioral and neural outcomes.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Preliminary evidence for changes in frontoparietal network connectivity in the early abstinence period in alcohol use disorder: a longitudinal resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Imagine before you leap: Episodic future thinking combined with transcranial direct current stimulation training for impulsive choice in repetitive negative thinking.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) captures an important transdiagnostic factor that predisposes to a maladaptive stress response and contributes to diverse psychiatric disorders. Although RNT can best be seen as a continuous symptom dimension that cuts across boundaries from health to various psychiatric disorders, the neural mechanisms underlying RNT have almost exclusively been studied in health and stress-related disorders, such as depression and anxiety disorders. We set out to study RNT from a large-scale brain network perspective in a diverse population consisting of healthy subjects and patients with a broader range of psychiatric disorders. We studied 46 healthy subjects along with 153 patients with a stress-related and/or neurodevelopmental disorder. We focused on three networks, that are associated with RNT and diverse psychiatric disorders: the salience network, default mode network (DMN) and frontoparietal network (FPN). We investigated the relationship of RNT with both network connectivity strength at rest and with the stress-induced changes in connectivity. Across our whole sample, the level of RNT was positively associated with the connectivity strength of the left FPN at rest, but negatively associated with stress-induced changes in DMN connectivity. These findings may reflect an upregulation of the FPN in an attempt to divert attention away from RNT, while the DMN result may reflect a less flexible adaptation to stress, related to RNT. Additionally, we discuss how our findings fit into the non-invasive neurostimulation literature. Taken together, our results provide initial insight in the neural mechanisms of RNT across the spectrum from health to diverse psychiatric disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.