Imaging body-mind crosstalk in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is evidence that complex relationships exist between motor functions, brain structure, and cognitive functions, particularly in the aging population. However, whether such relationships observed in older adults could extend to other age groups (e.g., younger adults) remains to be elucidated. Thus, the current study addressed this gap in the literature by investigating potential associations between motor functions, brain structure, and cognitive functions in a large cohort of young adults. Methods: In the current study, data from 910 participants (22-35 yr) were retrieved from the Human Connectome Project. Interactions between motor functions (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness, gait speed, hand dexterity, and handgrip strength), brain structure (i.e., cortical thickness, surface area, and subcortical volumes), and cognitive functions were examined using linear mixed-effects models and mediation analyses. The performance of different machine-learning classifiers to discriminate young adults at three different levels (related to each motor function) was compared. Results: < 0.05). Four machine-learning classifiers with feature importance ranking were built to discriminate young adults with different levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (random forest), gait speed, hand dexterity (support vector machine with the radial kernel), and handgrip strength (artificial neural network). Conclusions: In summary, similar to observations in older adults, the current study provides empirical evidence (i) that motor functions in young adults are positively related to specific measures of cognitive functions, and (ii) that such relationships are at least partially mediated by distinct brain structures. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that machine-learning classifier has a promising potential to be used as a classification tool and decision support for identifying populations with below-average motor and cognitive functions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".