Rich-club structure contributes to individual variance of reading skills via feeder connections in children with reading disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work considers how connectome-wide differences in brain organization might distinguish good and poor readers. The connectome comprises a 'rich-club' organization in which a small number of hub regions play a focal role in assisting global communication across the whole brain. Prior work indicates that this rich-club structure is associated with typical and impaired cognitive function although no work so far has examined how this relates to skilled reading or its disorders. Here we investigated the rich-club structure of brain's white matter connectome and its relationship to reading subskills in 64 children with and without reading disabilities. Among three types of white matter connections, the strength of feeder connections that connect hub and non-hub nodes was significantly correlated with word reading efficiency and phonemic decoding. Phonemic decoding was also positively correlated with connectivity between connectome-wide hubs and nodes within the left-hemisphere reading network, as well as the local efficiency of the reading network. Exploratory analyses also identified sex differences indicating these effects were stronger in girls. This work highlights the independent roles of connectome-wide structure and the more narrowly-defined reading network in understanding the neural bases of skilled and impaired reading in children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".