ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Evaluating the efficacy of three classical EEG paradigms in the discrimination of bipolar depression.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Given the lack of consensus regarding the optimal EEG paradigm for identifying bipolar depression (BD), this study sought to systematically evaluate the efficacy of three classic EEG paradigms-eyes open, eyes closed, and free viewing-in diagnosing BD. Methods: EEGs were collected from 28 individuals diagnosed with BD and 42 healthy controls(HCs) across three experimental conditions: eyes closed, eyes open, and free viewing. Sociodemographic data and neuropsychological testing were also collected. This research investigated notable variations in brain functional connectivity between the two groups across paradigms, the correlation of features with neuropsychological assessments, and classification outcomes. Results: The results demonstrated that under the eyes-closed paradigm, significant differences in the Phase Lag Index (PLI) were consistently observed across the δ, θ, β, and γ frequency bands. This paradigm also featured the highest number of electrodes significantly correlated with cognitive scales. Furthermore, the eyes-closed condition achieved the highest accuracy in bipolar depression recognition, with the Random Forest classifier yielding the highest accuracy of 79.43% and an F1 score of 76.82%. These findings underscore the eyes closed paradigm as a superior, straightforward EEG experimental approach for the diagnosis of bipolar depression. Conclusions: This study indicates that the eyes closed experimental paradigm more effectively demonstrates the electrophysiological disparities between patients with BD and HCs, in comparison to the eyes open paradigm and the action observation-based free viewing paradigms, as determined through the analysis of various outcome metrics.
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.