Investigating heterogeneity across autism, ADHD, and typical development using measures of cortical thickness, surface area, cortical/subcortical volume, and structural covariance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism are multi-faceted neurodevelopmental conditions with limited biological markers. The clinical diagnoses of autism and ADHD are based on behavioural assessments and may not predict long-term outcomes or response to interventions and supports. To address this gap, data-driven methods can be used to discover groups of individuals with shared biological patterns. Methods In this study, we investigated measures derived from cortical/subcortical volume, surface area, cortical thickness, and structural covariance investigated of 565 participants with diagnoses of autism [n = 262, median(IQR) age = 12.2(5.9), 22% female], and ADHD [n = 171, median(IQR) age = 11.1(4.0), 21% female] as well neurotypical children [n = 132, median(IQR) age = 12.1(6.7), 43% female]. We integrated cortical thickness, surface area, and cortical/subcortical volume, with a measure of single-participant structural covariance using a graph neural network approach. Results Our findings suggest two large clusters, which differed in measures of adaptive functioning (χ2 = 7.8, P = 0.004), inattention (χ2 = 11.169, P < 0.001), hyperactivity (χ2 = 18.44, P < 0.001), IQ (χ2 = 9.24, P = 0.002), age (χ2 = 70.87, P < 0.001), and sex (χ2 = 105.6, P < 0.001). Discussion These clusters did not align with existing diagnostic labels, suggesting that brain structure is more likely to be associated with differences in adaptive functioning, IQ, and ADHD features.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".