Cortical Gyrification Morphology in ASD and ADHD: Implication for Further Similarities or Disorder-Specific Features?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared etiological pathways are suggested in ASD and ADHD given high rates of comorbidity, phenotypic overlap and shared genetic susceptibility. Given the peak of cortical gyrification expansion and emergence of ASD and ADHD symptomology in early development, we investigated gyrification morphology in 539 children and adolescents (6-17 years of age) with ASD (n=197) and ADHD (n=96) compared to typically developing controls (n=246) using the local Gyrification Index (lGI) to provide insight into contributing etiopathological factors in these two disorders. We also examined IQ effects and functional implications of gyrification by exploring the relation between lGI and ASD and ADHD symptomatology beyond diagnosis. General Linear Models yielded no group differences in lGI, and across groups, we identified an age-related decrease of lGI and greater lGI in females compared to males. No diagnosis-by-age interactions were found. Accounting for IQ variability in the model (n=484) yielded similar results. No significant associations were found between lGI and social communication deficits, repetitive and restricted behaviours, inattention or adaptive functioning. By examining both disorders and controls using shared methodology, we found no evidence of atypicality in gyrification as measured by the lGI in these conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".