Neuroanatomical phenotypes in mental illness: identifying convergent and divergent cortical phenotypes across autism, ADHD and schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is evidence suggesting neuropsychiatric disorders share genomic, cognitive and clinical features. Here, we ask if autism-spectrum disorders (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and schizophrenia share neuroanatomical variations. Methods: First, we used measures of cortical anatomy to estimate spatial overlap of neuroanatomical variation using univariate methods. Next, we developed a novel methodology to determine whether cortical deficits specifically target or are “enriched” within functional resting-state networks. Results: We found cortical anomalies were preferentially enriched across functional networks rather than clustering spatially. Specifically, cortical thickness showed significant enrichment between patients with ASD and those with ADHD in the default mode network, between patients with ASD and those with schizophrenia in the frontoparietal and limbic networks, and between patients with ADHD and those with schizophrenia in the ventral attention network. Networks enriched in cortical thickness anomalies were also strongly represented in functional MRI results (Neurosynth; r = 0.64, p = 0.032). Limitations: We did not account for variable symptom dimensions and severity in patient populations, and our cross-sectional design prevented longitudinal analyses of developmental trajectories. Conclusion: These findings suggest that common deficits across neuropsychiatric disorders cannot simply be characterized as arising out of local changes in cortical grey matter, but rather as entities of both local and systemic alterations targeting brain networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".