Integration of Brain and Behavior Measures for Identification of Data-Driven Groups Cutting Across Children with ASD, ADHD, or OCD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are clinically and biologically heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). The objective of the present study was to integrate brain imaging and behavioral measures to identify new brain-behavior subgroups cutting across these disorders. A subset of the data from the Province of Ontario Neurodevelopmental Disorder (POND) Network including participants with different NDDs (aged 6-16 years) that underwent cross-sectional T1-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning on the same 3T scanner, and behavioral/cognitive assessments was used. Similarity Network Fusion was applied to integrate cortical thickness, subcortical volume, white matter fractional anisotropy (FA), and behavioral measures in 176 children with ASD, ADHD or OCD with complete data that passed quality control. Normalized mutual information (NMI) was used to determine top contributing model features. Bootstrapping, out-of-model outcome measures and supervised machine learning were each used to examine stability and evaluate the new groups. Cortical thickness in socio-emotional and attention/executive networks and inattention symptoms comprised the top ten features driving participant similarity and differences between four transdiagnostic groups. Subcortical volumes (pallidum, nucleus accumbens, thalamus) were also different among groups, although white matter FA showed limited differences. Features driving participant similarity remained stable across resampling, and the new groups showed significantly different scores on everyday adaptive functioning. Our findings open the possibility of studying new data-driven groups that represent children with NDDs more similar to each other than others within their own diagnostic group. Such new groups can be evaluated longitudinally for prognostic utility and could be stratified for clinical trials targeted toward each group’s unique brain and behavioral profiles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".