Cortical and subcortical T1 white/gray contrast, chronological age, and cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The maturational schedule of typical brain development is tightly constrained; deviations from it are associated with cognitive atypicalities, and are potentially predictive of developmental disorders. Previously, we have shown that the white/gray contrast at the inner border of the cortex is a good predictor of chronological age, and is sensitive to aspects of brain development that reflect cognitive performance. Here we extend that work to include the contrast at the white/gray border of subcortical structures. We show that cortical and subcortical contrast together yield better age-predictions than any non-kernel-based method based on a single image-type, and that the residuals of the improved predictions provide new insight into unevenness in cognitive performance. We demonstrate the improvement in age predictions in two large datasets: the NIH Pediatric Data, with 831 scans of typically developing individuals between 4 and 22 years of age; and the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics data, with 909 scans of individuals in a similar age-range. Assessment of the relation of the residuals of these age predictions to verbal and performance IQ revealed correlations in opposing directions, and a principal component analysis of the residuals of the model that best fit the contrast data produced components related to either performance IQ or verbal IQ. Performance IQ was associated with the first principle component, reflecting increased cortical contrast, broadly, with almost no subcortical presence; verbal IQ was associated with the second principle component, reflecting reduced contrast in the basal ganglia and increased contrast in the bilateral arcuate fasciculi.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".