Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32797941›Full record

SynthesisBiological psychiatry2021

Great Expectations: A Critical Review of and Suggestions for the Study of Reward Processing as a Cause and Predictor of Depression.

Dylan M Nielson, Hanna Keren, Georgia O'Callaghan, Sarah M Jackson, Ioanna Douka, Pablo Vidal-Ribas, Narun Pornpattananangkul, Christopher C Camp, Lisa S Gorham, Christine Wei and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biological psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Decisional reference point pathology: A cognitive mechanism for and a correlate of major depressive disorder in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Dylan M NielsonSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hanna KerenSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Georgia O'CallaghanSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sarah M JacksonSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ioanna DoukaSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Pablo Vidal-RibasSocial and Behavioral Science Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Narun PornpattananangkulDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Christopher C CampSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lisa S GorhamSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Christine WeiSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Stuart KirwanSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Charles Y ZhengMachine Learning Team, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Facility, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Argyris StringarisSection on Clinical and Computational Psychiatry (CompΨ), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: argyris.stringaris@nih.gov.

Funding

Mood, Brain, and Development UnitZIAMH002957 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI STRINGARIS, ARGYRIOS · 2017 to 2022
$14.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA MH002957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both human and animal studies support the relationship between depression and reward processing abnormalities, giving rise to the expectation that neural signals of these processes may serve as biomarkers or mechanistic treatment targets. Given the great promise of this research line, we scrutinized those findings and the theoretical claims that underlie them. To achieve this, we applied the framework provided by classical work on causality as well as contemporary approaches to prediction. We identified a number of conceptual, practical, and analytical challenges to this line of research and used a preregistered meta-analysis to quantify the longitudinal associations between reward processing abnormalities and depression. We also investigated the impact of measurement error on reported data. We found that reward processing abnormalities do not reach levels that would be useful for clinical prediction, yet the available evidence does not preclude a possible causal role in depression.

Indexed as

DepressionMotivationHumansRewardDepressionDevelopmentMeta-analysisReliabilityReproducibilityReward processing

Identifiers

PMID32797941
PMCPMC10726343

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.