Subgrouping autism and ADHD based on structural MRI population modelling centiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are two highly heterogeneous neurodevelopmental conditions with variable underlying neurobiology. Imaging studies have yielded varied results, and it is now clear that there is unlikely to be one characteristic neuroanatomical profile of either condition. Parsing this heterogeneity could allow us to identify more homogeneous subgroups, either within or across conditions, which may be more clinically informative. This has been a pivotal goal for neurodevelopmental research using both clinical and neuroanatomical features, though results thus far have again been inconsistent with regards to the number and characteristics of subgroups. METHODS: Here, we use population modelling to cluster a multi-site dataset based on global and regional centile scores of cortical thickness, surface area and grey matter volume. We use HYDRA, a novel semi-supervised machine learning algorithm which clusters based on differences to controls and compare its performance to a traditional clustering approach. RESULTS: We identified distinct subgroups within autism and ADHD, as well as across diagnosis, often with opposite neuroanatomical alterations relatively to controls. These subgroups were characterised by different combinations of increased or decreased patterns of morphometrics. We did not find significant clinical differences across subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Crucially, however, the number of subgroups and their membership differed vastly depending on chosen features and the algorithm used, highlighting the impact and importance of careful method selection. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the importance of examining heterogeneity in autism and ADHD and demonstrate that population modelling is a useful tool to study subgrouping in autism and ADHD. We identified subgroups with distinct patterns of alterations relative to controls but note that these results rely heavily on the algorithm used and encourage detailed reporting of methods and features used in future studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".