Hemispheric asymmetry in cortical thinning reflects intrinsic organization of the neurotransmitter systems and homotopic functional connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemispheric lateralization and its origins have been of great interest in neuroscience for over a century. The left-right asymmetry in cortical thickness may stem from differential maturation of the cerebral cortex in the two hemispheres. Here, we investigated the spatial pattern of hemispheric differences in cortical thinning during adolescence, and its relationship with the density of neurotransmitter receptors and homotopic functional connectivity. Using longitudinal data from IMAGEN study (N = 532), we found that many cortical regions in the frontal and temporal lobes thinned more in the right hemisphere than in the left. Conversely, several regions in the occipital and parietal lobes thinned less in the right (vs. left) hemisphere. We then revealed that regions thinning more in the right (vs. left) hemispheres had higher density of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters in the right (vs. left) side. Moreover, the hemispheric differences in cortical thinning were predicted by homotopic functional connectivity. Specifically, regions with stronger homotopic functional connectivity showed a more symmetrical rate of cortical thinning between the left and right hemispheres, compared with regions with weaker homotopic functional connectivity. Based on these findings, we suggest that the typical patterns of hemispheric differences in cortical thinning may reflect the intrinsic organization of the neurotransmitter systems and related patterns of homotopic functional connectivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".