Brain morphology normative modelling platform for abnormality and centile estimation: Brain MoNoCle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normative models of brain structure estimate the effects of covariates such as age and sex using large samples of healthy controls. These models can then be applied to, for example, smaller clinical cohorts to distinguish disease effects from other covariates. However, these advanced statistical modelling approaches can be difficult to access, and processing large healthy cohorts is computationally demanding. Thus, accessible platforms with pre-trained normative models are needed. We present such a platform for brain morphology analysis as an open-source web applicationhttps://cnnplab.shinyapps.io/BrainMoNoCle/, with six key features: (i) user-friendly web interface, (ii) individual and group outputs, (iii) multi-site analysis, (iv) regional and whole-brain analysis, (v) integration with existing tools, and (vi) featuring multiple morphology metrics. Using a diverse sample of 3,276 healthy controls across 21 sites, we pre-trained normative models on various metrics. We validated the models with a small sample of individuals with bipolar disorder, showing outputs that aligned closely with existing literature only after applying our normative modelling. Using a cohort of people with temporal lobe epilepsy, we showed that individual-level abnormalities were in line with seizure lateralisation. Finally, with the ability to investigate multiple morphology measures in the same framework, we found that biological covariates are better explained in specific morphology measures, and for applications, only some measures are sensitive to the disease process. Our platform offers a comprehensive framework to analyse brain morphology in clinical and research settings. Validations confirm the superiority of normative models and the advantage of investigating a range of brain morphology metrics together.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.015 |
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".