MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396240927 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.26.24305395

How Do Neurotransmitter Pathways Contribute to Neuroimaging Phenotypes?

2024· preprint· en· W4396240927 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Ebneabbasi, Mortaza Afshani, Arman Seyed-Ahmadi, Varun Warrier, Richard A. I. Bethlehem, Timothy Rittman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingPhenotypeNeuroscienceNeurotransmitter systemsNeurotransmitterNeurotransmitter AgentsPsychologyBiologyGeneGeneticsDopamineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neuroimaging could accurately reflect human behaviour in health and disease, but the mechanism by which image-derived phenotypes correspond to neurotransmitter systems remains uncertain. Prior studies have explored spatial correlations between neuroimaging phenotypes and positron emission tomography radiotracers. However, the influence of neurotransmitters goes beyond the receptors/transporters, influencing a wider array of intracellular components as pivotal parts of neurotransmitter pathways. Here, we used unsupervised learning to understand how the brain maps of healthy function (i.e., magnetoencephalography frequency-specific power) and abnormal structure (i.e., disorder-specific cortical thickness) are closely anchored to underlying neurotransmitter pathways assessed by gene expression data. To do this, we used large-scale datasets of the Human Connectome Project (HCP), Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) and Allen Human Brain Atlas (AHBA). We considered spatial and random gene null models to mitigate false positives. We replicate our analyses using different gene stability thresholds. This analytic approach paves the way for personalised medicine and advanced biomarkers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→