T1 white/gray contrast as a predictor of chronological age, and an index of cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maturational schedule of human brain development appears to be narrowly confined. The chronological age of an individual can be predicted from brain images with considerable accuracy, and deviation from the typical pattern of brain maturation has been related to cognitive performance. Methods using multi-modal data, or complex measures derived from voxels throughout the brain have shown the greatest accuracy, but are difficult to interpret in terms of the biology. Measures based on the cortical surface(s) have yielded less accurate predictions, suggesting that perhaps developmental changes related to cortical gray matter are not strongly related to chronological age, and that perhaps development is more strongly related to changes in subcortical regions or in deep white matter. We show that a simple metric based on the white/gray contrast at the inner border of the cortical gray-matter is a comparably good predictor of chronological age, and our usage of an elastic net penalized linear regression model reveals the brain regions which contribute most to age-prediction. We demonstrate this in two large datasets: the NIH Pediatric Data, with 832 scans of typically developing children, adolescents, and young adults; and the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics data, with 760 scans of individuals in a similar age-range. Moreover, we show that the residuals of age-prediction based on this white/gray contrast metric are more strongly related to IQ than are those from cortical thickness, suggesting that this metric is more sensitive to aspects of brain development that reflect cognitive performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".