Cognitive cartography of mammalian brains using meta-analysis of AI experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of the brain is increasingly mirrored by the complexity of the neuroscientific literature, yet no individual mind can fully grasp the diversity of scales, methodologies and model organisms. Where human experts flag, the latest AI models excel: large language models can seamlessly integrate knowledge across scientific domains. Here we show how large language models can systematically and quantitatively synthesise literature-wide neuroscientific knowledge about the cognitive operations and dysfunctions associated with each brain region. Meta-analysis of AI experts reveals structure-function mappings to which existing meta-analytic frameworks are blind, demonstrated by lesions and direct intracranial stimulation. It also unlocks the possibility of extending quantitative literature meta-analysis and decoding of brain maps to other model organisms beyond human. As proof of concept, we integrate LLM meta-analysis with species-specific transcriptomics in human, macaque, and mouse, to discover an evolutionarily conserved molecular circuit for cognition. Altogether, meta-analysis of AI experts can fundamentally catalyze neuroscientific discovery by overcoming the barrier of data aggregation from heterogeneous studies, finally bringing together a scattered literature to identify emergent patterns and latent insights across disparate subfields, modalities, and species.
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 | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".