The Relationship Between White Matter Microstructure and General Cognitive Ability in Patients With Schizophrenia and Healthy Participants in the ENIGMA Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia has recently been associated with widespread white matter microstructural abnormalities, but the functional effects of these abnormalities remain unclear. Widespread heterogeneity of results from studies published to date preclude any definitive characterization of the relationship between white matter and cognitive performance in schizophrenia. Given the relevance of deficits in cognitive function to predicting social and functional outcomes in schizophrenia, the authors carried out a meta-analysis of available data through the ENIGMA Consortium, using a common analysis pipeline, to elucidate the relationship between white matter microstructure and a measure of general cognitive performance, IQ, in patients with schizophrenia and healthy participants. METHODS: The meta-analysis included 760 patients with schizophrenia and 957 healthy participants from 11 participating ENIGMA Consortium sites. For each site, principal component analysis was used to calculate both a global fractional anisotropy component (gFA) and a fractional anisotropy component for six long association tracts (LA-gFA) previously associated with cognition. RESULTS: Meta-analyses of regression results indicated that gFA accounted for a significant amount of variation in cognition in the full sample (effect size [Hedges' g]=0.27, CI=0.17-0.36), with similar effects sizes observed for both the patient (effect size=0.20, CI=0.05-0.35) and healthy participant groups (effect size=0.32, CI=0.18-0.45). Comparable patterns of association were also observed between LA-gFA and cognition for the full sample (effect size=0.28, CI=0.18-0.37), the patient group (effect size=0.23, CI=0.09-0.38), and the healthy participant group (effect size=0.31, CI=0.18-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides robust evidence that cognitive ability is associated with global structural connectivity, with higher fractional anisotropy associated with higher IQ. This association was independent of diagnosis; while schizophrenia patients tended to have lower fractional anisotropy and lower IQ than healthy participants, the comparable size of effect in each group suggested a more general, rather than disease-specific, pattern of association.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".