High spatial overlap but diverging age‐related trajectories of cortical magnetic resonance imaging markers aiming to represent intracortical myelin and microstructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical effects of cortical metrics derived from standard T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, such as gray-white matter contrast (GWC), boundary sharpness coefficient (BSC), T1-weighted/T2-weighted ratio (T1w/T2w), and cortical thickness (CT), are often interpreted as representing or being influenced by intracortical myelin content with little empirical evidence to justify these interpretations. We first examined spatial correspondence with more biologically specific microstructural measures, and second compared between-marker age-related trends with the underlying hypothesis that different measures primarily driven by similar changes in myelo- and microstructural underpinnings should be highly related. Cortical MRI markers were derived from MRI images of 127 healthy subjects, aged 18-81, using cortical surfaces that were generated with the CIVET 2.1.0 pipeline. Their gross spatial distributions were compared with gene expression-derived cell-type densities, histology-derived cytoarchitecture, and quantitative R1 maps acquired on a subset of participants. We then compared between-marker age-related trends in their shape, direction, and spatial distribution of the linear age effect. The gross anatomical distributions of cortical MRI markers were, in general, more related to myelin and glial cells than neuronal indicators. Comparing MRI markers, our results revealed generally high overlap in spatial distribution (i.e., group means), but mostly divergent age trajectories in the shape, direction, and spatial distribution of the linear age effect. We conclude that the microstructural properties at the source of spatial distributions of MRI cortical markers can be different from microstructural changes that affect these markers in aging.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".