MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392897364 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46398-2

Population-wide cerebellar growth models of children and adolescents

2024· article· en· W4392897364 on OpenAlexafffund
Carolin Gaiser, Rick van der Vliet, Augustijn de Boer, Opher Donchin, Pierre Berthet, Gabriel A. Devenyi, M. Mallar Chakravarty, Jörn Diedrichsen, André F. Marquand, Maarten A. Frens, Ryan L. Muetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchZonMwErasmus Medisch CentrumTechnische Universiteit DelftErasmus Universiteit RotterdamNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWellcome Trust
KeywordsMirroringCerebellumNeuroscienceNeuroimagingFunctional neuroimagingPsychologyCognitionBrain developmentMotor skillCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past, the cerebellum has been best known for its crucial role in motor function. However, increasingly more findings highlight the importance of cerebellar contributions in cognitive functions and neurodevelopment. Using a total of 7240 neuroimaging scans from 4862 individuals, we describe and provide detailed, openly available models of cerebellar development in childhood and adolescence (age range: 6-17 years), an important time period for brain development and onset of neuropsychiatric disorders. Next to a traditionally used anatomical parcellation of the cerebellum, we generated growth models based on a recently proposed functional parcellation. In both, we find an anterior-posterior growth gradient mirroring the age-related improvements of underlying behavior and function, which is analogous to cerebral maturation patterns and offers evidence for directly related cerebello-cortical developmental trajectories. Finally, we illustrate how the current approach can be used to detect cerebellar abnormalities in clinical samples.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations36
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207