Population Differences in Brain Morphology and Microstructure among Chinese, Malay, and Indian Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied a sample of 75 Chinese, 73 Malay, and 29 Indian healthy neonates taking part in a cohort study to examine potential differences in neonatal brain morphology and white matter microstructure as a function of ethnicity using both structural T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We first examined the differences in global size and morphology of the brain among the three groups. We then constructed the T2-weighted MRI and DTI atlases and employed voxel-based analysis to investigate ethnic differences in morphological shape of the brain from the T2-weighted MRI, and white matter microstructure measured by fractional anisotropy derived from DTI. Compared with Malay neonates, the brains of Indian neonates' tended to be more elongated in anterior and posterior axis relative to the superior-inferior axis of the brain even though the total brain volume was similar among the three groups. Although most anatomical regions of the brain were similar among Chinese, Malay, and Indian neonates, there were anatomical variations in the spinal-cerebellar and cortical-striatal-thalamic neural circuits among the three populations. The population-related brain regions highlighted in our study are key anatomical substrates associated with sensorimotor functions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".