Science1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
A Rutgers-led study of 122 people found synaptic loss that follows the brain's chemistry and wiring, not a diffuse smear, and modelling points to a left frontal starting point.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Rutgers-led researchers reported in Molecular Psychiatry that PET imaging of 122 people, 29 of them diagnosed with schizophrenia, found pronounced and widespread reductions in synapses across frontal and temporal regions and areas involved in memory and emotion, with the left hemisphere considerably harder hit than the right [1][2][4][5]. The consequence is not the finding of loss, which was expected, but its geometry: computer simulations based on the brain's structural connections identified an area of the left frontal lobe as a likely starting point from which loss could spread into connected regions [8].
The method is the reason this is new. Conventional MRI cannot specifically measure synapses, which has left the question of where synaptic loss actually occurs in living patients largely unanswered [12]. The team measured those junctions directly with PET, in what the announcement describes as one of the largest synaptic density PET studies conducted so far [1][2]. Scale is relative here: 29 patients is a large clinical sample for this modality and a small one in absolute terms, so the regional and hemispheric contrasts rest on fewer than 30 cases against the remaining 93 participants [3][15].
The most operationally useful result is a dissociation. The synaptic pattern did not match the brain volume changes typically seen on standard MRI, which the authors read as evidence that synaptic loss and volume loss may reflect separate biological processes rather than one process seen through two instruments [6]. Anyone treating structural MRI atrophy as a stand-in for synaptic health should note that.
The spatial organisation also tracks chemistry. Regions with the greatest synaptic losses tended to contain high concentrations of receptors for serotonin, gamma-aminobutyric acid and glutamate, suggesting that a region's molecular makeup shapes how vulnerable it is [7]. "These findings suggest that in schizophrenia, synaptic loss is not random," said first author Sidhant Chopra, now at Orygen and the University of Melbourne, adding that it follows the brain's molecular and connectivity architecture, "which could eventually help identify where and how to intervene" [9][11]. Senior authors were Avram Holmes of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rajiv Radhakrishnan of Yale [11].
Two limits are worth holding. The left frontal epicentre is an inference from simulated spread over structural connectivity, not observed propagation in patients [8]. And the release, dated 20 August 2026, does not report participants' medication status, illness duration or symptom severity, all of which bear on whether the pattern reflects the disease, its treatment or its chronicity [14][16].
What to watch is whether the map moves. The researchers say future work will examine how synaptic loss changes over time and how it responds to clinical treatment [13]. If serial scans show loss expanding outward from the same left frontal seed, the process becomes stageable and the epicentre becomes a target; Holmes framed the mapping as a step toward identifying where to intervene, including with emerging therapies meant to prevent and regrow synapses [10]. If different patients turn out to have different epicentres, the useful unit stops being schizophrenia and starts being the individual scan.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Chopra said: "These findings suggest that in schizophrenia, synaptic loss is not random. Rather, it follows the brain's molecular and connectivity architecture, which could eventually help identify where and how to intervene."
A study including a Rutgers professor used specialized positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to directly measure synaptic connections in the living human brain; it was published in Molecular Psychiatry.
The research involved 122 people, including 29 diagnosed with schizophrenia, making it one of the largest synaptic density PET imaging studies conducted so far.
Compared with healthy participants, people with schizophrenia showed a pronounced and widespread reduction in synaptic connections across several parts of the brain, including frontal and temporal regions and areas involved in memory and emotion.
The synaptic loss was considerably greater on the left side of the brain than on the right.
The synaptic pattern did not match the changes in brain volume typically seen with standard MRI scans, suggesting synaptic loss and volume change may reflect separate biological processes rather than two imaging methods capturing the same underlying change.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One peer-reviewed study, described through a single institutional release
The findings trace to a named, DOI-bearing paper in Molecular Psychiatry with a specified cohort and a coherent multi-step analysis, which is real evidentiary substance. But everything available here is the Rutgers release as republished: no effect sizes, statistical thresholds, tracer or quantification details, and no independent corroboration. The clinical subgroup is 29 people and key covariates are absent, so the regional and hemispheric contrasts and the simulated left frontal epicenter remain single-study, small-sample results.
No adoption evidence supplied
The supplied source reports a research finding only. There is no deployment, clinical uptake, tracer or scanner availability, trial enrolment, licensing or usage disclosure of any kind, so no adoption level can be measured without inventing facts.
Framing runs modestly ahead of a small single-cohort result
The headline framing ('surprising pattern', a traceable origin point) and the therapeutic aside about preventing and regrowing synapses reach further than the underlying material supports: the origin point is simulation-derived rather than longitudinal, the diagnosed group numbers 29, medication status and illness duration go unreported, and no statistics accompany the contrasts. The gap is moderate rather than severe because the study is genuinely peer-reviewed, the release does state that the epicenter comes from modelling, and the intervention language is explicitly hedged as eventual.
Institutional promotional release, republished without independent reporting
The text is materials provided by Rutgers University, promoting research by its own faculty, with superlative framing ('one of the largest', 'surprising') and quotes only from the study's own authors. The republishing outlet adds no independent verification or outside comment. That is a strong self-interested framing incentive, though it is disclosed openly and attached to a real peer-reviewed paper rather than concealed.
Coherent but single-source and unreplicated
Confidence is limited by structure rather than internal contradiction: one publisher, one primary release, no independent expert or replication, and a small clinical subgroup with unreported covariates. It is not lower because the underlying paper is peer-reviewed and identifiable, the cohort and directional findings are stated concretely, and the release itself distinguishes modelled from measured results.
leadership
Disney swaps raises for discounted stock and a full health-plan re-enrollment1 distinct publisher
science
A 15-minute script, not a device: what actually moved gun owners on off-site storage1 distinct publisher
product
The robot forgot the breathing exercises: AI toys need an end-of-life spec1 distinct publisher
science
Two governments got AI slop in writing, and the review chain caught none of it1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 20, 2026