Gyrification changes are related to cognitive strengths in autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral, cognitive and functional particularities in autism differ according to autism subgroups and might be associated with domain-specific cognitive strengths. It is unknown whether structural changes support this specialization. We investigated the link between cortical folding, its maturation and cognitive strengths in autism subgroups presenting verbal or visuo-spatial peaks of abilities. We measured gyrification, a structural index related to function, in 55 autistic participants with (AS-SOD, N = 27) or without (AS-NoSOD, N = 28) a speech onset delay (SOD) with similar symptom severity but respectively perceptual and verbal cognitive strengths, and 37 typical adolescents and young adults matched for intelligence and age. We calculated the local Gyrification Index (lGI) throughout an occipito-temporal region of interest and independently modeled age and peak of ability effects for each group. Unique gyrification features in both autistic groups were detected in localized clusters. When comparing the three groups, gyrification was found lower in AS-SOD in a fusiform visual area, whereas it was higher in AS-NoSOD in a temporal language-related region. These particular areas presented age-related gyrification differences reflecting contrasting local maturation pathways in AS. As expected, peaks of ability were found in a verbal subtest for the AS-NoSOD group and in the Block Design IQ subtest for the AS-SOD group. Irrespective of their direction, regional gyrification differences in visual and language processing areas respectively reflect AS-SOD perceptual and AS-NoSOD language-oriented peaks. Unique regional maturation trajectories in the autistic brain may underline specific cognitive strengths, which are key variables for understanding heterogeneity in autism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".