Towards a unified analysis of brain maturation and aging across the entire lifespan: A MRI analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature about the structural characterization of the human cerebellum is related to the context of a specific pathology or focused in a restricted age range. In fact, studies about the cerebellum maturation across the lifespan are scarce and most of them considered the cerebellum as a whole without investigating each lobule. This lack of study can be explained by the lack of both accurate segmentation methods and data availability. Fortunately, during the last years, several cerebellum segmentation methods have been developed and many databases comprising subjects of different ages have been made publically available. This fact opens an opportunity window to obtain a more extensive analysis of the cerebellum maturation and aging. In this study, we have used a recent state-of-the-art cerebellum segmentation method called CERES and a large data set (N = 2,831 images) from healthy controls covering the entire lifespan to provide a model for 12 cerebellum structures (i.e., lobules I-II, III, IV, VI, Crus I, Crus II, VIIB, VIIIA, VIIIB, IX, and X). We found that lobules have generally an evolution that follows a trajectory composed by a fast growth and a slow degeneration having sometimes a plateau for absolute volumes, and a decreasing tendency (faster in early ages) for normalized volumes. Special consideration is dedicated to Crus II, where slow degeneration appears to stabilize in elder ages for absolute volumes, and to lobule X, which does not present any fast growth during childhood in absolute volumes and shows a slow growth for normalized volumes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it