Human development, inequality, and their associations with brain structure across 29 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The macro-social and environmental conditions in which people live, such as the level of a country's development or inequality, are associated with brain-related disorders. However, the relationship between these systemic environmental factors and the brain remains unclear. We aimed to determine the association between the level of development and inequality of a country and the brain structure of healthy adults. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study pooling brain imaging (T1-based) data from 145 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in 7,962 healthy adults (4,110 women) in 29 different countries. We used a meta-regression approach to relate the brain structure to the country's level of development and inequality. RESULTS: Higher human development was consistently associated with larger hippocampi and more expanded global cortical surface area, particularly in frontal areas. Increased inequality was most consistently associated with smaller hippocampal volume and thinner cortical thickness across the brain. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the macro-economic conditions of a country are reflected in its inhabitants' brains and may explain the different incidence of brain disorders across the world. The observed variability of brain structure in health across countries should be considered when developing tools in the field of personalized or precision medicine that are intended to be used across the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".