Cross-Diagnosis Structural Correlates of Autistic-Like Social Communication Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social communication differences are seen in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but the brain mechanisms contributing to these differences remain largely unknown. To address this gap, we used a data-driven and diagnosis-agnostic approach to discover brain correlates of social communication differences in ASD, ADHD, and OCD, and subgroups of individuals who share similar patterns of brain-behavior associations. A machine learning pipeline (regression clustering) was used to discover the pattern of association between structural brain measures (volume, surface area, and cortical thickness) and social communication abilities. Participants (n = 416) included children with a diagnosis of ASD (n = 192, age = 12.0[5.6], 19% female), ADHD (n = 109, age = 11.1[4.1], 18% female), or OCD (n = 50, age = 12.3[4.2], 42% female), and typically developing controls (n = 65, age = 11.6[7.1], 48% female). The analyses revealed (1) associations with social communication abilities in distributed cortical and subcortical networks implicated in social behaviors, language, attention, memory, and executive functions, and (2) three data-driven, diagnosis-agnostic subgroups based on the patterns of association in the above networks. Our results suggest that different brain networks may contribute to social communication differences in subgroups that are not diagnosis-specific.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".