Benchmarking brain organoid recapitulation of fetal corticogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain organoids are becoming increasingly relevant to dissect the molecular mechanisms underlying psychiatric and neurological conditions. The in vitro recapitulation of key features of human brain development affords the unique opportunity of investigating the developmental antecedents of neuropsychiatric conditions in the context of the actual patients' genetic backgrounds. Specifically, multiple strategies of brain organoid (BO) differentiation have enabled the investigation of human cerebral corticogenesis in vitro with increasing accuracy. However, the field lacks a systematic investigation of how closely the gene co-expression patterns seen in cultured BO from different protocols match those observed in fetal cortex, a paramount information for ensuring the sensitivity and accuracy of modeling disease trajectories. Here we benchmark BO against fetal corticogenesis by integrating transcriptomes from in-house differentiated cortical BO (CBO), other BO systems, human fetal brain samples processed in-house, and prenatal cortices from the BrainSpan Atlas. We identified co-expression patterns and prioritized hubs of human corticogenesis and CBO differentiation, highlighting both well-preserved and discordant trends across BO protocols. We evaluated the relevance of identified gene modules for neurodevelopmental disorders and psychiatric conditions finding significant enrichment of disease risk genes especially in modules related to neuronal maturation and synapsis development. The longitudinal transcriptomic analysis of CBO revealed a two-step differentiation composed of a fast-evolving phase, corresponding to the appearance of the main cell populations of the cortex, followed by a slow-evolving one characterized by milder transcriptional changes. Finally, we observed heterochronicity of differentiation across BO models compared to fetal cortex. Our approach provides a framework to directly compare the extent of in vivo/in vitro alignment of neurodevelopmentally relevant processes and their attending temporalities, structured as a resource to query for modeling human corticogenesis and the neuropsychiatric outcomes of its alterations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".