MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210382267 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.31.22269833

Structural differences in adolescent brains can predict alcohol misuse

2022· preprint· en· W4210382267 on OpenAlexaff
Roshan Prakash Rane, Evert Ferdinand de Man, Ji-Hoon Kim, Kai Görgen, Mira Tschorn, Michael A. Rapp, Tobias Banaschewski, Arun L.W. Bokde, Sylvane Desrivières, Herta Flor, Antoine Grigis, Hugh Garavan, Penny Gowland, Rüdiger Brühl, Jean‐Luc Martinot, Marie‐Laure Paillère Martinot, Éric Artiges, Frauke Nees, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Hervé Lemaître, Tomáš Paus, Luise Poustka, Juliane H. Fröhner, Lauren Robinson, Michael N. Smolka, Jeanne Winterer, Robert Whelan, Günter Schumann, Henrik Walter, Andreas Heinz, Kerstin Ritter

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversity of TorontoScience North
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCorpus callosumWhite matterInternal capsulePsychologyFrontal cortexCortex (anatomy)NeuroscienceMedicineMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Alcohol misuse during adolescence (AAM) has been linked with disruptive structural development of the brain and alcohol use disorder. Using machine learning (ML), we analyze the link between AAM phenotypes and adolescent brain structure (T1-weighted imaging and DTI) at ages 14, 19, and 22 in the IMAGEN dataset ( n ∼ 1182). ML predicted AAM at age 22 from brain structure with a balanced accuracy of 78% on independent test data. Therefore, structural differences in adolescent brains could significantly predict AAM. Using brain structure at age 14 and 19, ML predicted AAM at age 22 with a balanced accuracy of 73% and 75%, respectively. These results showed that structural differences preceded alcohol misuse behavior in the dataset. The most informative features were located in the white matter tracts of the corpus callosum and internal capsule, brain stem, and ventricular CSF. In the cortex, they were spread across the occipital, frontal, and temporal lobes and in the cingulate cortex. Our study also demonstrates how the choice of the phenotype for AAM, the ML method, and the confound correction technique are all crucial decisions in an exploratory ML study analyzing psychiatric disorders with weak effect sizes such as AAM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→