Mapping individual differences in intermodal coupling in neurodevelopment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within-individual coupling between measures of brain structure and function evolves in development and may underlie differential risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite increasing interest in the development of structure–function relationships, rigorous methods to quantify and test individual differences in coupling remain nascent. In this article, we explore and address gaps in approaches for testing and spatially localizing individual differences in intermodal coupling, including a new method, called CEIDR (Cluster Enhancement for testing Individual Differences in ρ (r)). CEIDR controls false positives in individual differences in intermodal correlations that arise from mean and variance heterogeneity and improves statistical power by adopting adaptive cluster enhancement. Through a comparison across different approaches to testing individual differences in intermodal coupling, we delineate subtle differences in the hypotheses they test, which may ultimately lead researchers to arrive at different results. Finally, we illustrate these differences in two applications to brain development using data from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".