Common and disorder-specific cortical thickness alterations in internalizing, externalizing and thought disorders during early adolescence: an Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A growing body of neuroimaging studies has reported common neural abnormalities among mental disorders in adults. However, it is unclear whether the distinct disorder-specific mechanisms operate during adolescence despite the overlap among disorders. Methods: We studied a large cohort of more than 11 000 preadolescent (age 9–10 yr) children from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development cohort. We adopted a regrouping approach to compare cortical thickness (CT) alterations and longitudinal changes between healthy controls ( n = 4041) and externalizing ( n = 1182), internalizing ( n = 1959) and thought disorder ( n = 347) groups. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed on regional CT across 4468 unrelated European youth. Results: Youth with externalizing or internalizing disorders exhibited increased regional CT compared with controls. Externalizing ( p = 8 × 10 −4 , Cohen d = 0.10) and internalizing disorders ( p = 2 × 10 −3 , Cohen d = 0.08) shared thicker CT in the left pars opercularis. The somatosensory and the primary auditory cortex were uniquely affected in externalizing disorders, whereas the primary motor cortex and higher-order visual association areas were uniquely affected in internalizing disorders. Only youth with externalizing disorders showed decelerated cortical thinning from age 10–12 years. The GWAS found 59 genome-wide significant associated genetic variants across these regions. Cortical thickness in common regions was associated with glutamatergic neurons, while internalizing-specific regional CT was associated with astrocytes, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells and GABAergic neurons. Limitations: The sample size of the GWAS was relatively small. Conclusion: Our study provides strong evidence for the presence of specificity in CT, developmental trajectories and underlying genetic underpinnings among externalizing and internalizing disorders during early adolescence. Our results support the neurobiological validity of the regrouping approach that could supplement the use of a dimensional approach in future clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".