Independent components of human brain morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantification of brain morphology has become an important cornerstone in understanding brain structure. Measures of cortical morphology such as thickness and surface area are frequently used to compare groups of subjects or characterise longitudinal changes. However, such measures are often treated as independent from each other. A recently described scaling law, derived from a statistical physics model of cortical folding, demonstrates that there is a tight covariance between three commonly used cortical morphology measures: cortical thickness, total surface area, and exposed surface area. We show that assuming the independence of cortical morphology measures can hide features and potentially lead to misinterpretations. Using the scaling law, we account for the covariance between cortical morphology measures and derive novel independent measures of cortical morphology. By applying these new measures, we show that new information can be gained; in our example we show that distinct morphological alterations underlie healthy ageing compared to temporal lobe epilepsy, even on the coarse level of a whole hemisphere. We thus provide a conceptual framework for characterising cortical morphology in a statistically valid and interpretable manner, based on theoretical reasoning about the shape of the cortex.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".