Overweight is not associated with cortical thickness alterations in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies report an association between body mass index (BMI) and cortical thickness in adults. Some studies demonstrate diffuse cortical thinning in obesity, while others report effects in areas that are associated with self-regulation, such as lateral prefrontal cortex. METHODS: This study used multilevel modeling of data from the NIH Pediatric MRI Data Repository, a mixed longitudinal and cross-sectional database, to examine the relationship between cortical thickness and body weight in children. Cortical thickness was computed at 81,942 vertices of 716 MRI scans from 378 children aged between 4 and 18 years. Body mass index Z score for age was computed for each participant. We performed vertex-wise statistical analysis of the relationship between cortical thickness and BMI, accounting for age and gender. In addition, cortical thickness was extracted from regions of interest in prefrontal cortex and insula. RESULTS: No significant association between cortical thickness and BMI was found, either by statistical parametric mapping or by region of interest analysis. RESULTS remained negative when the analysis was restricted to children aged 12-18. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between BMI and cortical thickness was not found in this large pediatric sample. The association between BMI and cortical thinning develops after adolescence. This has implications for the nature of the relationship between brain anatomy and weight gain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".