MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2751184137 · doi:10.1101/183004

Structural covariance of brain region volumes is associated with both structural connectivity and transcriptomic similarity

2017· preprint· en· W2751184137 on OpenAlexafffund
Yohan Yee, Darren Fernandes, Leon French, Jacob Ellegood, Lindsay S. Cahill, Dulcie A. Vousden, Leigh Spencer Noakes, Jan Scholz, Matthijs C. van Eede, Brian J. Nieman, John G. Sled, Jason P. Lerch

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenGovernment of OntarioCompute CanadaOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsCovarianceSimilarity (geometry)Brain sizeStructural variationTranscriptomeBiologyNeuroimagingStructural similarityEvolutionary biologyPattern recognition (psychology)NeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceGeneticsGeneStatisticsGene expressionGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An organizational pattern seen in the brain, termed structural covariance , is the statistical association of pairs of brain regions in their anatomical properties. These associations, measured across a population as covariances or correlations usually in cortical thickness or volume, are thought to reflect genetic and environmental underpinnings. Here, we examine the biological basis of structural volume covariance in the mouse brain. We first examined large scale associations between brain region volumes using an atlas-based approach that parcellated the entire mouse brain into 318 regions over which correlations in volume were assessed, for volumes obtained from 153 mouse brain images via high-resolution MRI. We then used a seed-based approach and determined, for 108 different seed regions across the brain and using mouse gene expression and connectivity data from the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the variation in structural covariance data that could be explained by distance to seed, transcriptomic similarity to seed, and connectivity to seed. We found that overall, correlations in structure volumes hierarchically clustered into distinct anatomical systems, similar to findings from other studies and similar to other types of networks in the brain, including structural connectivity and transcriptomic similarity networks. Across seeds, this structural covariance was significantly explained by distance (17% of the variation, up to a maximum of 49% for structural covariance to the visceral area of the cortex), transcriptomic similarity (13% of the variation, up to maximum of 28% for structural covariance to the primary visual area) and connectivity (15% of the variation, up to a maximum of 36% for structural covariance to the intermediate reticular nucleus in the medulla) of covarying structures. Together, distance, connectivity, and transcriptomic similarity explained 37% of structural covariance, up to a maximum of 63% for structural covariance to the visceral area. Additionally, this pattern of explained variation differed spatially across the brain, with transcriptomic similarity playing a larger role in the cortex than subcortex, while connectivity explains structural covariance best in parts of the cortex, midbrain, and hindbrain. These results suggest that both gene expression and connectivity underlie structural volume covariance, albeit to different extents depending on brain region, and this relationship is modulated by distance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→