Application of a localized morphometrics approach to imaging-derived brain phenotypes for genotype-phenotype associations in pediatric mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Quantitative global or regional brain imaging measurements, known as imaging-specific or -derived phenotypes (IDPs), are commonly used in genotype-phenotype association studies to explore the genomic architecture of the brain and how it may be affected by neurological diseases (e.g., Alzheimer's disease), mental health (e.g., depression), and neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]). For this purpose, medical images have been used as IDPs using a voxel-wise or global approach via principal component analysis. However, these methods have limitations related to multiple testing or the inability to isolate high variation regions, respectively. Methods: To address these limitations, this study investigates a localized, principal component analysis-like approach for dimensionality reduction of cross-sectional T1-weighted MRI datasets utilizing diffeomorphic morphometry. This approach can reduce the dimensionality of images while preserving spatial information and enables the inclusion of spatial locality in the analysis. In doing so, this method can be used to explore morphometric brain changes across specific components and spatial scales of interest and to identify associations with genome regions in a multivariate genome-wide association study. For a first clinical feasibility study, this method was applied to data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, including adolescents with ADHD (n = 1,359), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 1,752), and depression (n = 1,766). Results: Meaningful associations of specific morphometric features with genome regions were identified with the data and corresponded to previous found brain regions in the respective mental health and neurodevelopmental disorder cohorts. Discussion: In summary, the localized, principal component analysis-like approach can reduce the dimensionality of medical images while still being able to identify meaningful local brain region alterations that are associated with genomic markers across multiple scales. The proposed method can be applied to various image types and can be easily integrated in many genotype-phenotype association study setups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".