MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417182089 · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2025.1690469

From gradients to cognition: linking cortical manifolds to brain flexibility and disorder

2025· article· en· W4417182089 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Y. Nashed, Ryan Sandarage, Christopher R. Pasarikovski, Jason P. Gallivan, Douglas J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cognition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingCognitionFlexibility (engineering)Bridging (networking)Human brainCognitive flexibilityCognitive architectureFunctional neuroimaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional neuroscience describes the cerebral cortex as a mosaic of discrete, functionally specialized regions. However, a complementary view has emerged, demonstrating that the brain is also organized along continuous gradients that capture large-scale transitions in connectivity, microstructure, and function. These gradients, derived using dimensionality reduction techniques on neuroimaging data, provide a low-dimensional manifold framework that unifies our understanding of how cortical architecture supports cognitive flexibility, learning, and clinical disorders. In this review, we integrate evidence from genetics, phylogeny, development, and multimodal neuroimaging to outline how macroscale gradients emerge from underlying biological constraints, become progressively decoupled from local microstructure in transmodal cortex, and dynamically reorganize during cognitive and clinical states. We further discuss how this framework provides new insights into individual differences, disease mechanisms, and recovery following brain injury. By bridging anatomy, function, and behavior, gradient-based approaches offer a powerful lens for mapping the architecture of human cognition and its disruption in disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in CognitionSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207