Association vs. Prediction: The Impact of Cortical Surface Smoothing and Parcellation on Brain Age
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Association and prediction studies of the brain target the biological consequences of aging and their impact on brain function. Such studies are conducted using different smoothing levels and parcellations at the preprocessing stage, on which their results are dependent. However, the impact of these parameters on the relationship between association values and prediction accuracy is not established. In this study, we used cortical thickness and its relationship with age to investigate how different smoothing and parcellation levels affect the detection of age-related brain correlates as well as brain age prediction accuracy. Our main measures were resel numbers—resolution elements—and age-related variance explained. Using these common measures enabled us to directly compare parcellation and smoothing effects in both association and prediction studies. In our sample of N = 608 participants with age range 18–88, we evaluated age-related cortical thickness changes as well as brain age prediction. We found a negative relationship between prediction performance and correlation values for both parameters. Our results also quantify the relationship between delta age estimates obtained based on different processing parameters. Furthermore, with the direct comparison of the two approaches, we highlight the importance of correct choice of smoothing and parcellation parameters in each task, and how they can affect the results of the analysis in opposite directions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it