Normative data for subcortical regional volumes over the lifetime of the adult human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normative data for volumetric estimates of brain structures are necessary to adequately assess brain volume alterations in individuals with suspected neurological or psychiatric conditions. Although many studies have described age and sex effects in healthy individuals for brain morphometry assessed via magnetic resonance imaging, proper normative values allowing to quantify potential brain abnormalities are needed. We developed norms for volumetric estimates of subcortical brain regions based on cross-sectional magnetic resonance scans from 2790 healthy individuals aged 18 to 94years using 23 samples provided by 21 independent research groups. The segmentation was conducted using FreeSurfer, a widely used and freely available automated segmentation software. Models predicting subcortical regional volumes of each hemisphere were produced including age, sex, estimated total intracranial volume (eTIV), scanner manufacturer, magnetic field strength, and interactions as predictors. The mean explained variance by the models was 48%. For most regions, age, sex and eTIV predicted most of the explained variance while manufacturer, magnetic field strength and interactions predicted a limited amount. Estimates of the expected volumes of an individual based on its characteristics and the scanner characteristics can be obtained using derived formulas. For a new individual, significance test for volume abnormality, effect size and estimated percentage of the normative population with a smaller volume can be obtained. Normative values were validated in independent samples of healthy adults and in adults with Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".