Neuroanatomical foundations of delayed reward discounting decision making II: Evaluation of sulcal morphology and fractal dimensionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delayed reward discounting (DRD) is a form of decision-making reflecting valuation of smaller immediate rewards versus larger delayed rewards, and high DRD has been linked to several health behaviors, including substance use disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and obesity. Elucidating the underlying neuroanatomical factors may offer important insights into the etiology of these conditions. We used structural MRI scans of 1038 Human Connectome Project participants (Mage = 28.86, 54.7% female) to explore two novel measures of neuroanatomy related to DRD: 1) sulcal morphology (SM; depth and width) and 2) fractal dimensionality (FD), or cortical morphometric complexity, of parcellated cortical and subcortical regions. To ascertain unique contributions to DRD preferences, indicators that displayed significant partial correlations with DRD after family-wise error correction were entered into iterative mixed-effect models guided by the association magnitude. When considering only SM indicators, the depth of the right inferior and width of the left central sulci were uniquely associated with DRD preferences. When considering only FD indicators, the FD of the left middle temporal gyrus, right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and left lateral occipital and entorhinal cortices uniquely contributed DRD. When considering SM and FD indicators simultaneously, the right inferior frontal sulcus depth and left central sulcus width; and the FD of the left middle temporal gyrus, lateral occipital cortex and entorhinal cortex were uniquely associated with DRD. These results implicate SM and FD as features of the brain that underlie variation in the DRD decision-making phenotype and as promising candidates for understanding DRD as a biobehavioral disease process.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".