Brain morphology in autism and fragile x syndrome correlates with social IQ: First report from the Canadian-Swiss-Egyptian Neurodevelopmental Study (CSENS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragile x syndrome shares most of the behavioral phenotypic similarities with autism. How are these similarities reflected in brain morphology? Ten children with autism and seven with fragile x underwent morphological (T1) 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging. We found no significant difference in total brain volumes, regional volumes, gyrification index, sulcul depth and cerebral cortical thickness. However, children with autism showed significant decrease in the medial prefrontal bilaterally and the left anterior cingulate cortices. Regression analysis revealed positive correlation between the medial prefrontal cortical thickness and social IQ. We suggest that the difference between the two groups in the medial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices thickness may entail an altered social cognitive style. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies directly differentiating between social indifference (autism) and social avoidance (fragile x) are needed in order to further characterize the spectrum of social abnormalities between these two groups. Key words: autism, fragile x syndrome, magnetic resonance imaging, cerebral cortical thickness, medial prefrontal, anterior cingulate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".