MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281768379 · doi:10.7554/elife.77545

Structural differences in adolescent brains can predict alcohol misuse

2022· article· en· W4281768379 on OpenAlexaff
Roshan Prakash Rane, Evert Ferdinand de Man, JiHoon 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

VenueeLife · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversity of TorontoScience North
FundersMedical Research CouncilDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsCorpus callosumWhite matterLogistic regressionSupport vector machineBrain morphometryGradient boostingCingulate cortexBinge drinkingNeurosciencePsychologyInternal capsuleArtificial intelligenceMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAlcohol consumptionBiologyComputer scienceCentral nervous systemInternal medicineAlcoholRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol misuse during adolescence (AAM) has been associated with disruptive development of adolescent brains. In this longitudinal machine learning (ML) study, we could predict AAM significantly from brain structure (T1-weighted imaging and DTI) with accuracies of 73 -78% in the IMAGEN dataset (n∼1182). Our results not only show that structural differences in brain can predict AAM, but also suggests that such differences might precede AAM behavior in the data. We predicted 10 phenotypes of AAM at age 22 using brain MRI features at ages 14, 19, and 22. Binge drinking was found to be the most predictable phenotype. The most informative brain features were located in the ventricular CSF, and in white matter tracts of the corpus callosum, internal capsule, and brain stem. In the cortex, they were spread across the occipital, frontal, and temporal lobes and in the cingulate cortex. We also experimented with four different ML models and several confound control techniques. Support Vector Machine (SVM) with rbf kernel and Gradient Boosting consistently performed better than the linear models, linear SVM and Logistic Regression. Our study also demonstrates how the choice of the predicted phenotype, ML model, and confound correction technique are all crucial decisions in an explorative ML study analyzing psychiatric disorders with small 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207