Intelligence and cortical morphometry: caveats in brain-behavior associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-established that brain size is associated with intelligence. But the relationship between cortical morphometric measures and intelligence is unclear. Studies have produced conflicting results or no significant relations between intelligence and cortical morphometric measures such as cortical thickness and peri-cortical contrast. This discrepancy may be due to multicollinearity amongst the independent variables in a multivariate regression analysis, or a failure to fully account for the relationship between brain size and intelligence in some other way. Our study shows that neither cortical thickness nor peri-cortical contrast reliably improves IQ prediction accuracy beyond what is achieved with brain volume alone. We show this in multiple datasets, with child data, developmental data, and with adult data; we show this with data acquired either at multiple sites, or at a single site; we show this with data acquired with different MRI scanner manufacturers, or with all data acquired on a single scanner; and we show this with fluid intelligence, full-scale IQ, performance IQ, and verbal IQ. But our point is not really even about IQ; rather we proffer a methodological caveat and potential explanation of the discrepancies in previous results, and which applies broadly.
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 | 0.102 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".