Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39184228›Full record

ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Decision-Making, Pro-variance Biases and Mood-Related Traits.

Wanjun Lin, Raymond J Dolan

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Habenula-ventral tegmental area functional coupling and risk aversion in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Correction: Decision-Making, Pro-variance Biases and Mood-Related Traits.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wanjun LinMax Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London WC1B 5EH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3051-1696
Raymond J DolanMax Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London WC1B 5EH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-761X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In value-based decision-making there is wide behavioural variability in how individuals respond to uncertainty. Maladaptive responses to uncertainty have been linked to a vulnerability to mental illness, for example, between risk aversion and affective disorders. Here, we examine individual differences in risk sensitivity when subjects confront options drawn from different value distributions, where these embody the same or different means and variances. In simulations, we show that a model that learns a distribution using Bayes' rule and reads out different parts of the distribution under the influence of a risk-sensitive parameter (Conditional Value at Risk, CVaR) predicts how likely an agent is to prefer a broader over a narrow distribution (pro-variance bias/risk-seeking) under the same overall means. Using empirical data, we show that CVaR estimates correlate with participants' pro-variance biases better than a range of alternative parameters derived from other models. Importantly, across two independent samples, CVaR estimates and participants' pro-variance bias negatively correlated with trait rumination, a common trait in depression and anxiety. We conclude that a Bayesian-CVaR model captures individual differences in sensitivity to variance in value distributions and task-independent trait dispositions linked to affective disorders.

Indexed as

BayesianConditional Value-at-RiskPro-variance biasRisk-seekingRuminationUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39184228
PMCPMC11342847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.