MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388943142 · doi:10.3390/brainsci13121622

Characterization of Cortical and Subcortical Structural Brain Asymmetry in Adults with and without Dyslexia

2023· article· en· W4388943142 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Cummine, T. T. Ngo, Kelly Nisbet

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlanum temporaleSupramarginal gyrusPsychologyLateralization of brain functionNeuroscienceFusiform gyrusDyslexiaSuperior temporal gyrusLingual gyrusAudiologyGyrusPutamenReading (process)MedicineFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple cortical (planum temporale, supramarginal gyrus, fusiform gyrus) and subcortical (caudate, putamen, and thalamus) regions have shown different functional lateralization patterns for skilled vs. dyslexic readers. The extent to which skilled and dyslexic adult readers show differential structural lateralization remains to be seen. Method: Participants included 72 adults (N = 41 skilled; N = 31 dyslexic) who underwent a high-resolution MRI brain scan. The grey matter volume of the cortical and subcortical structures was extracted. Results: While there were clear behavioral differences between the groups, there were no differences in any of the isolated structures (i.e., either total size or asymmetry index) and limited evidence for any brain–behavior relationships. We did find a significant cortical–cortical relationship (p = 0.006) and a subcortical–subcortical relationship (p = 0.008), but not cross-over relationships. Overall, this work provides unique information on neural structures as they relate to reading in skilled and dyslexic readers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207