Interdatabase Variability in Cortical Thickness Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of cortical thinning with age has been well established; however, the measured rate of change varies between studies. The source of this variation could be image acquisition techniques including hardware and vendor specific differences. Databases are often consolidated to increase the number of subjects but underlying differences between these datasets could have undesired effects. We explore differences in cerebral cortex thinning between 4 databases, totaling 1382 subjects. We investigate several aspects of these databases, including: 1) differences between databases of cortical thinning rates versus age, 2) correlation of cortical thinning rates between regions for each database, and 3) regression bootstrapping to determine the effect of the number of subjects included. We also examined the effect of different databases on age prediction modeling. Cortical thinning rates were significantly different between databases in all 68 parcellated regions (ANCOVA, P < 0.001). Subtle differences were observed in correlation matrices and bootstrapping convergence. Age prediction modeling using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach showed varying prediction performance (0.64 < R2 < 0.82) between databases. When a database was used to calibrate the model and then applied to another database, prediction performance consistently decreased. We conclude that there are indeed differences in the measured cortical thinning rates between these large-scale databases.
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 | 0.022 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".