Dissecting the heterogeneous subcortical brain volume of autism spectrum disorder using community detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural brain alterations in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are heterogeneous, with limited effect sizes overall. In this study, we aimed to identify subgroups in ASD, based on neuroanatomical profiles; we hypothesized that the effect sizes for case/control differences would be increased in the newly defined subgroups. Analyzing a large data set from the ENIGMA-ASD working group (n = 2661), we applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to seven subcortical volumes of individuals with and without ASD to uncover the underlying organization of subcortical structures. Based on earlier findings and data availability, we focused on three age groups: boys (<=14 years), male adolescents (15-22 years), and adult men (> = 22 years). The resulting factor scores were used in a community detection (CD) analysis to cluster participants into subgroups. Three factors were found in each subsample; the factor structure in adult men differed from that in boys and male adolescents. From these factors, CD uncovered four distinct communities in boys and three communities in adolescents and adult men, irrespective of ASD diagnosis. The effect sizes for case/control comparisons were more pronounced than in the combined sample, for some communities. A significant group difference in ADOS scores between communities was observed in boys and male adolescents with ASD. We succeeded in stratifying participants into more homogeneous subgroups based on subcortical brain volumes. This stratification enhanced our ability to observe case/control differences in subcortical brain volumes in ASD, and may help to explain the heterogeneity of previous findings in ASD. LAY SUMMARY: Structural brain alterations in ASD are heterogeneous, with overall limited effect sizes. Here we aimed to identify subgroups in ASD based on neuroimaging measures. We tested whether the effect sizes for case/control differences would be increased in the newly defined subgroups. Based on neuroanatomical profiles, we succeeded in stratifying our participants into more homogeneous subgroups. The effect sizes of case/control differences were more pronounced in some subgroups than those in the whole sample.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".