MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979304499 · doi:10.18060/23568

Cortical growth patterns in relation to autism spectrum disorder in ages 1-2 years

2019· article· en· W2979304499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan Plunkett, Emily Iannopollo, Chris Basinski, Kara Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of IMPRS · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyRelation (database)Spectrum (functional analysis)AutismDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceMedicineComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Hypothesis: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with a prevalence of 2.76% among children ages 3-17 in the United States1. Some studies have linked total brain volume overgrowth or gyrification changes to ASD2,3,4. However, few have attempted to relate specific growth patterns to ASD. We hypothesize that regional differences in brain growth in subjects aged 12-24 months will correlate with diagnoses from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS). Project Methods: The subjects for this study came from the Infant Brain Imaging Study (IBIS)5. The CIVET pipeline was used to segment T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (MRIs) into surfaces using a non-linear classification method5,6,7. CIVET quality control outputs were used for validation and to select parameters for the tasks along with previous recommendations5,8. Analysis of Functional NeuroImages (AFNI) was used to convert the CIVET output format, and Connectome Workbench was used to calculate surface curvature. Using cortical reconstructions and surface curvatures from 12- and 24-month brains, anatomically-constrained Multimodal Surface Matching (aMSM) was applied to achieve point correspondence and generate individual cortical growth maps9,10. Results: Within the IBIS database, we found 38 individuals with ASD and 121 controls with T1weighted scans at both 12 and 24-month time points. Once individual growth maps have been generated for all subjects, Permutation Analysis of Linear Models (PALM)11 will be used to determine statistically significant differences in the cortical growth patterns of ASD versus control groups. Conclusion and Potential Impact: Research on autism may benefit from longitudinal studies of growth, as opposed to analysis of structural differences at later ages4. We concentrate on cortical growth before 24 months, which may serve as an earlier marker of ASD, when abnormal brain growth can be seen yet social deficits are not fully established5. [1] Zablotsky B, Black LI, Blumberg SJ. Estimated Prevalence of Children With Diagnosed Developmental Disabilities in the United States, 2014–2016. NCHS Data Brief 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db291.pdf (accessed April 29, 2019). [2] Libero LE, Schaer M, Li DD, Amaral DG, Nordahl CW. A Longitudinal Study of Local Gyrification Index in Young Boys With Autism Spectrum Disorder. Cereb Cortex. 2019;29(6):2575-87. [3] Raznahan A, Toro R, Daly E, Robertson D, Murphy C, Deeley Q, et al. Cortical anatomy in autism spectrum disorder: an in vivo MRI study on the effect of age. Cereb Cortex. 2010;20(6):1332-40. [4] Duret P, Samson F, Pinsard B, Barbeau EB, Bore A, Soulieres I, et al. Gyrification changes are related to cognitive strengths in autism. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;20:415-23. [5] Hazlett HC, Gu H, Munsell BC, Kim SH, Styner M, Wolff JJ, et al. Early brain development in infants at high risk for autism spectrum disorder. Nature. 2017;542(7641):348-51. [6] Shaw P, Malek M, Watson B, Sharp W, Evans A, Greenstein D. Development of cortical surface area and gyrification in attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(3):191-7. [7] Ad-Dab’bagh, Y., Einarson, D., Lyttelton, O., Muehlboeck, J.-S., Mok, K., Ivanov, O., Vincent, R.D., Lepage, C., Lerch, J., Fombonne, E., and Evans, A.C. (2006). The CIVET Image-Processing Environment: A Fully Automated Comprehensive Pipeline for Anatomical Neuroimaging Research. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, M. Corbetta, ed. (Florence, Italy, NeuroImage). http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/users/yaddab/Yasser-HBM2006-Poster.pdf [8] Shaw P, Kabani NJ, Lerch JP, Eckstrand K, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, et al. Neurodevelopmental trajectories of the human cerebral cortex. J Neurosci. 2008;28(14):3586-94. [9] Garcia KE, Robinson EC, Alexopoulos D, Dierker DL, Glasser MF, Coalson TS, et al. Dynamic patterns of cortical expansion during folding of the preterm human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(12):3156-61. [10] Robinson EC, Garcia K, Glasser MF, Chen Z, Coalson TS, Makropoulos A, et al. Multimodal surface matching with higher-order smoothness constraints. Neuroimage. 2018;167:453-65. [11] Winkler AM, Ridgway GR, Webster MA, Smith SM, Nichols TE. Permutation inference for the general linear model. NeuroImage, 2014;92:381-397 (Open Access)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of IMPRSSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207