MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain structural changes in blindness: a systematic review and an anatomical likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4364355626 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Paré, Maxime Bleau, Laurence Dricot, Maurice Ptito, Ron Kupers

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfondenCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsMeta-analysisNeuroimagingNeuroscienceBlindnessPsychologyBrain morphometryOccipital lobeMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyOptometryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, numerous structural brain imaging studies investigated purported morphometric changes in early (EB) and late onset blindness (LB). The results of these studies have not yielded very consistent results, neither with respect to the type, nor to the anatomical locations of the brain morphometric alterations. To better characterize the effects of blindness on brain morphometry, we performed a systematic review and an Anatomical-Likelihood-Estimation (ALE) coordinate-based-meta-analysis of 65 eligible studies on brain structural changes in EB and LB, including 890 EB, 466 LB and 1257 sighted controls. Results revealed atrophic changes throughout the whole extent of the retino-geniculo-striate system in both EB and LB, whereas changes in areas beyond the occipital lobe occurred in EB only. We discuss the nature of some of the contradictory findings with respect to the used brain imaging methodologies and characteristics of the blind populations such as the onset, duration and cause of blindness. Future studies should aim for much larger sample sizes, eventually by merging data from different brain imaging centers using the same imaging sequences, opt for multimodal structural brain imaging, and go beyond a purely structural approach by combining functional with structural connectivity network analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.016
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.424
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207