Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41008096›Full record

ReviewEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Disorder at the Synapse: How the Active Inference Framework Unifies Competing Perspectives on Depression.

Christopher G Davey, Paul B Badcock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christopher G DaveyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1431-3852
Paul B BadcockCentre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6154-2597

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depression is one of the most disabling of all disorders across the community, yet many aspects of the disorder remain contentious. Psychosocial and biological perspectives are often placed in opposition to one another, which in part reflects a failure of our explanatory frameworks. The active inference account of brain function breaks down this dualism, demonstrating that bodily processes are deeply integrated with the social world. It shows us that there is no contradiction in understanding depression as a product of the social environment at the same time as having a brain basis and manifesting in biological symptoms. From an active inference perspective, depression can be thought of as a synaptopathy: a disorder that arises from alterations to the excitatory-inhibitory balance enacted at the synapse, reflecting the interoceptive precision-weightings that have changed in the context of psychosocial instability. Therapies that alleviate depressive symptoms act at different levels of the active inference framework to re-weight precision estimates and the confidence we have in our predictions: this is true for psychotherapies, lifestyle interventions and antidepressant medications. Their effectiveness is often only partial, and while different treatment modalities can complement one another, there is a need for continued development of new and better treatment options.

Indexed as

active inferenceantidepressantsdepressionpsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41008096
PMCPMC12469171

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.