Differences in cortical structure between cognitively normal East Asian and Caucasian older adults: a surface-based morphometry study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing literature on the impact of ethnicity on brain structure and function. Despite the regional heterogeneity in age-related changes and non-uniformity across brain morphometry measurements in the aging process, paucity of studies investigated the difference in cortical anatomy between the East Asian and Caucasian older adults. The present study aimed to compare cortical anatomy measurements, including cortical thickness, volume and surface area, between cognitively normal East Asian (n = 171) and Caucasian (n = 178) older adults, using surface-based morphometry and vertex-wise group analysis of high-dimensional structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. The East Asian group showed greater cortical thickness and larger cortical volume in the right superior temporal gyrus, postcentral gyrus, bilateral inferior temporal gyrus, and inferior parietal cortex. The Caucasian group showed thicker and larger cortex in the left transverse temporal cortex, lingual gyrus, right lateral occipital cortex, and precentral gyrus. Additionally, the difference in surface area was discordant with that in cortical thickness. Differences in brain structure between the East Asian and Caucasian might reflect differences in language and information processing, but further studies using standardized methods for assessing racial characteristics are needed. The research results represent a further step towards developing a comprehensive understanding of differences in brain structure between ethnicities of older adults, and this would enrich clinical research on aging and neurodegenerative diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".