Deep learning reveals that multidimensional social status drives population variation in 11,875 US participant cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an increasing realization, many behavioral relationships are interwoven with inherent variations in human populations. Presently, there is no clarity in the biomedical community on which sources of population variation are most dominant. The recent advent of population-scale cohorts like the Adolescent Brain Cognitive DevelopmentSM Study (ABCD Study®) are now offering unprecedented depth and width of phenotype profiling that potentially explains interfamily differences. Here, we leveraged a deep learning framework (conditional variational autoencoder) on the totality of the ABCD Study® phenome (8,902 candidate phenotypes in 11,875 participants) to identify and characterize major sources of population stratification. 80% of the top 5 sources of explanatory stratifications were driven by distinct combinations of 202 available socioeconomic status (SES) measures; each in conjunction with a unique set of non-overlapping social and environmental factors. Several sources of variation across this cohort flagged geographies marked by material poverty interlocked with mental health and behavioral correlates. Deprivation emerged in another top stratification in relation to urbanicity and its ties to immigrant and racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Conversely, two other major sources of population variation were both driven by indicators of privilege: one highlighted measures of access to educational opportunity and income tied to healthy home environments and good behavior, the other profiled individuals of European ancestry leading advantaged lifestyles in desirable neighborhoods in terms of location and air quality. Overall, the disclosed social stratifications underscore the importance of treating SES as a multidimensional construct and recognizing its ties into social determinants of health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".