Cortical Gyrification Morphology in Individuals with ASD and ADHD across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are common neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) that may impact brain maturation. A number of studies have examined cortical gyrification morphology in both NDDs. Here we review and when possible pool their results to better understand the shared and potentially disorder-specific gyrification features. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases, and 24 and 10 studies met the criteria to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis portions, respectively. Meta-analysis of local Gyrification Index (lGI) findings across ASD studies was conducted with SDM software adapted for surface-based morphometry studies. Meta-regressions were used to explore effects of age, sex, and sample size on gyrification differences. There were no significant differences in gyrification across groups. Qualitative synthesis of remaining ASD studies highlighted heterogeneity in findings. Large-scale ADHD studies reported no differences in gyrification between cases and controls suggesting that, similar to ASD, there is currently no evidence of differences in gyrification morphology compared with controls. Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to further clarify the effects of age, sex, and IQ on cortical gyrification in these NDDs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".