Population-specific brain charts reveal Chinese-Western differences in neurodevelopmental trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. However, current lifespan brain charts are primarily derived from European and North American cohorts, with Asian populations severely underrepresented. Here, we present the first population-specific brain charts for China, developed through the Chinese Lifespan Brain Mapping Consortium (Phase I) using neuroimaging data from 43,037 participants (aged 0-100 years) across 384 sites nationwide. We establish the lifespan normative trajectories for 296 structural brain phenotypes, encompassing global, subcortical, and cortical measures. Cross-population comparisons with Western brain charts (based on data from 56,339 participants aged 0-100 years) reveal distinct neurodevelopmental patterns in the Chinese population, including prolonged cortical and subcortical maturation, accelerated cerebellar growth, and earlier development of sensorimotor regions relative to paralimbic regions. Crucially, these Chinese-specific charts outperform Western-derived models in predicting healthy brain phenotypes and detecting pathological deviations in Chinese clinical cohorts. These findings highlight the urgent need for diverse, population-representative brain charts to advance equitable precision neuroscience and improve clinical validity across populations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".