A morphological study of schizophrenia with magnetic resonance imaging, advanced analytics, and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have performed a morphological analysis of patients with schizophrenia and compared them with healthy controls. Our analysis includes the use of publicly available automated extraction tools to assess regional cortical thickness (inclusive of within region cortical thickness variability) from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to characterize group-wise abnormalities associated with schizophrenia based on a publicly available dataset. We have also performed a correlation analysis between the automatically extracted biomarkers and a variety of patient clinical variables available. Finally, we also present the results of a machine learning analysis. Results demonstrate regional cortical thickness abnormalities in schizophrenia. We observed a correlation (rho = 0.474) between patients' depression and the average cortical thickness of the right medial orbitofrontal cortex. Our leading machine learning technology evaluated was the support vector machine with stepwise feature selection, yielding a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 74%, based on regional brain measurements, including from the insula, superior frontal, caudate, calcarine sulcus, gyrus rectus, and rostral middle frontal regions. These results imply that advanced analytic techniques combining MRI with automated biomarker extraction can be helpful in characterizing patients with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".