Establishing a Baseline for Human Cortical Folding Morphological Variables: A Multisite Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in the way human cerebral cortices fold have been correlated to health, disease, development, and aging. However, to obtain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that generate such differences, it is useful to derive one's morphometric variables from the first principles. This study explores one such set of variables that arise naturally from a model for universal self-similar cortical folding that was validated on comparative neuroanatomical data. We aim to establish a baseline for these variables across the human lifespan using a heterogeneous compilation of cross-sectional datasets as the first step to extending the model to incorporate the time evolution of brain morphology. We extracted the morphological features from structural MRI of 3,650 subjects: 3,095 healthy controls (CTL) and 555 patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) from 9 datasets, which were harmonized with a straightforward procedure to reduce the uncertainty due to heterogeneous acquisition and processing. The unprecedented possibility of analyzing such a large number of subjects in this framework allowed us to compare CTL and AD subjects' lifespan trajectories, testing if AD is a form of accelerated aging at the brain structural level. After validating this baseline from development to aging, we estimate the variables' uncertainties and show that Alzheimer's Disease is similar to premature aging when measuring global and local degeneration. This new methodology may allow future studies to explore the structural transition between healthy and pathological aging and may be essential to generate data for the cortical folding process simulations.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".