Pediatric Brain Development in Down Syndrome: A Field in Its Infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As surprisingly little is known about the developing brain studied in vivo in youth with Down syndrome (DS), the current review summarizes the small DS pediatric structural neuroimaging literature and begins to contextualize existing research within a developmental framework. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was completed, effect sizes from published studies were reviewed, and results are presented with respect to the DS cognitive behavioral phenotype and typical brain development. RESULTS: The majority of DS structural neuroimaging studies describe gross differences in brain morphometry and do not use advanced neuroimaging methods to provide nuanced descriptions of the brain. There is evidence for smaller total brain volume (TBV), total gray matter (GM) and white matter, cortical lobar, hippocampal, and cerebellar volumes. When reductions in TBV are accounted for, specific reductions are noted in subregions of the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, and hippocampus. A review of cortical lobar effect sizes reveals mostly large effect sizes from early childhood through adolescence. However, deviance is smaller in adolescence. Despite these smaller effects, frontal GM continues to be largely deviant in adolescence. An examination of age-frontal GM relations using effect sizes from published studies and data from Lee et al. (2016) reveals that while there is a strong inverse relationship between age and frontal GM volume in controls across childhood and adolescence, this is not observed in DS. CONCLUSIONS: Further developmentally focused research, ideally using longitudinal neuroimaging, is needed to elucidate the nature of the DS neuroanatomic phenotype during childhood and adolescence. (JINS, 2018, 24, 966-976).
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".