MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304758343 · doi:10.1002/hbm.26100

Predictive models demonstrate age‐dependent association of subcortical volumes and cognitive measures

2022· article· en· W4304758343 on OpenAlexaff
Akila Weerasekera, Adrian Ion‐Mărgineanu, Christopher Green, Maria Mody, Garry P. Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersMax-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und NeurowissenschaftenStanford University
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)PsychologyCognitionNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether brain matter volume is correlated with cognitive functioning and higher intelligence is controversial. We explored this relationship by analysis of data collected on 193 healthy young and older adults through the "Leipzig Study for Mind-Body-Emotion Interactions" (LEMON) study. Our analysis involved four cognitive measures: fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. Brain subregion volumes were determined by magnetic resonance imaging. We normalized each subregion volume to the estimated total intracranial volume and conducted training simulations to compare the predictive power of normalized volumes of large regions of the brain (i.e., gray matter, cortical white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid), normalized subcortical volumes, and combined normalized volumes of large brain regions and normalized subcortical volumes. Statistical tests showed significant differences in the performance accuracy and feature importance of the subregion volumes in predicting cognitive skills for young and older adults. Random forest feature selection analysis showed that cortical white matter was the key feature in predicting fluid intelligence in both young and older adults. In young adults, crystallized intelligence was best predicted by caudate nucleus, thalamus, pallidum, and nucleus accumbens volumes, whereas putamen, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and hippocampus volumes were selected for older adults. Cognitive flexibility was best predicted by the caudate, nucleus accumbens, and hippocampus in young adults and caudate and amygdala in older adults. Finally, working memory was best predicted by the putamen, pallidum, and nucleus accumbens in the younger group, whereas amygdala and hippocampus volumes were predictive in the older group. Thus, machine learning predictive models demonstrated an age-dependent association between subcortical volumes and cognitive measures. These approaches may be useful in predicting the likelihood of age-related cognitive decline and in testing of approaches for targeted improvement of cognitive functioning in older adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207