Automatic analysis of skull thickness, scalp-to-cortex distance and association with age and sex in cognitively normal elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Personalized neurostimulation has been a potential treatment for many brain diseases, which requires insights into brain/skull geometry. Here, we developed an open source efficient pipeline BrainCalculator for automatically computing the skull thickness map, scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD), and brain volume based on T 1 -weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. We examined the influence of age and sex cross-sectionally in 407 cognitively normal older adults (71.9±8.0 years, 60.2% female) from the ADNI. We demonstrated the compatibility of our pipeline with commonly used preprocessing packages and found that BrainSuite Skullfinder was better suited for such automatic analysis compared to FSL Brain Extraction Tool 2 and SPM12- based unified segmentation using ground truth. We found that the sphenoid bone and temporal bone were thinnest among the skull regions in both females and males. There was no increase in regional minimum skull thickness with age except in the female sphenoid bone. No sex difference in minimum skull thickness or SCD was observed. Positive correlations between age and SCD were observed, faster in females (0.307%/y) than males (0.216%/y) in temporal SCD. A negative correlation was observed between age and whole brain volume computed based on brain surface (females -1.031%/y, males -0.998%/y). In conclusion, we developed an automatic pipeline for MR-based skull thickness map, SCD, and brain volume analysis and demonstrated the sex-dependent association between minimum regional skull thickness, SCD and brain volume with age. This pipeline might be useful for personalized neurostimulation planning.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".