Back

Predicting stress response trajectories: Differential contributions of limbic and prefrontal regions to cortisol and affective responses

Lipka, R.; Baertl, C.; Kreuzpointner, L.; Giglberger, M.; Konzok, J.; Speicher, N.; Waller, L.; Kudielka, B. M.; Wuest, S.; Walter, H.; Henze, G.-I.

2025-11-16 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.11.14.688580 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Why do individuals respond differently to stress? Since rodent studies indicated that stress regulation relies on limbic and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) outputs, we aimed to investigate whether data from these regions could also predict cortisol and affect trajectories following psychosocial stress in humans. In this pre-registered study, 281 healthy adults (145 female) were exposed to ScanSTRESS. Repeated assessments of salivary cortisol and negative affect were used to identify response trajectories (i.e. groups of participants) using latent class mixture modelling (LCMM). LCMMs without brain predictors were compared to LCMMs including structural (volume, thickness) and functional (activation, exposure-time effect) predictors from the amygdala, hippocampus, or mPFC regions. Results showed that cortisol LCMMs without brain predictors exhibited a single mean trajectory. Adding brain predictors resulted in three to four response trajectories, depending on region and outcome. Within identified models, cortisol hyper-response trajectories were predicted by larger amygdala and hippocampus volumes. Cortisol non-responses were predicted by greater amygdala activation and volume. Elevated baseline cortisol was predicted by higher hippocampal activation. mPFC markers did not predict cortisol trajectories, however, medial orbitofrontal cortex parameters identified affect response profiles mirroring trait-like affect. Together, our findings suggest dissociated roles of limbic and mPFC regions in stress regulation: While limbic structures predicted cortisol responses, the mPFC shaped affective experience.

Published in Translational Psychiatry (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.