Allometric scaling of brain regions to intra‐cranial volume: An epidemiological MRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that sub-structures of the brain scale allometrically to total brain size, that is, in a non-proportional and non-linear way. Here, scaling of different volumes of interest (VOI) to intra-cranial volume (ICV) was examined. It was assessed whether scaling was allometric or isometric and whether scaling coefficients significantly differed from each other. We also tested to what extent allometric scaling of VOI was introduced by the automated segmentation technique. Furthermore, reproducibility of allometric scaling was studied different age groups and study populations. Study samples included samples of cognitively healthy adults from the community-based Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study (AGES-Reykjavik Study) (N = 3,883), the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study (CARDIA) (N =709), and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (N = 180). Data encompassed participants with different age, ethnicity, risk factor profile, and ICV and VOI obtained with different automated MRI segmentation techniques. Our analysis showed that (1) allometric scaling is a trait of all parts of the brain, (2) scaling of neo-cortical white matter, neo-cortical gray matter, and deep gray matter structures including the cerebellum are significantly different from each other, and (3) allometric scaling of brain structures cannot solely be explained by age-associated atrophy, sex, ethnicity, or a systematic bias from study-specific segmentation algorithm, but appears to be a true feature of brain geometry. Hum Brain Mapp 38:151-164, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".