ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Metacognitive deficits in major depressive disorder.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diminished reactivity effect of confidence rating on perceptual decision-making in depression.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to investigate the metacognition of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and its correlation with their condition, as well as explore its diagnostic significance in the early stages of the disease, thereby providing a reference for clinical treatment. Methods: Using a cross-sectional research design, we selected 66 patients diagnosed with MDD and 99 healthy controls for a mental rotation task; we examined their metacognitive performance using a post-decisional confidence assessment paradigm. We evaluated various aspects, including their performance on first-order tasks (d'), metacognitive bias (average confidence), metacognitive sensitivity (meta-d'), metacognitive efficiency (the M Ratio). Results: In terms of the first-order task performance (d'), the group with MDD scored significantly lower than the healthy controls (t = -4.274, p < 0.001, respectively). Regarding metacognitive bias(average confidence), metacognitive sensitivity (meta-d'), and metacognitive efficiency (the M ratio), the group with MDD performed significantly worse than the healthy controls (t = -4.280, p < 0.001; t = -3.540, p < 0.001; t = -2.104, p = 0.039, respectively). In addition, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) scores of the patients with MDD were significantly negatively correlated with their d', average confidence levels, meta-d', and M ratio(r = -0.468, p < 0.001; r = -0.601, p < 0.001;r = -0.457, p < 0.001; r = -0.362, p = 0.003), The average confidence levels of MDD patients are significantly positively correlated with d', meta-d', and M ratio. (r = -0.552, p < 0.001; r = 0.738, p < 0.001;r =0.273, p =0.02). Conclusion: The metacognitive abilities of patients with MDD were significantly impaired, and the degree of metacognitive impairment was related to the severity of clinical depressive symptoms. Moreover, the impairment of their metacognitive abilities was correlated with negative metacognitive bias. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2400091242.
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.