MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116965308 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.20.695692

Anatomical White Matter Tracts Span the Cortical Hierarchy to Support Cognitive Diversity

2025· article· en· W7116965308 on OpenAlexafffund
Joëlle Bagautdinova, Golia Shafiei, Audrey Luo, Margaret Pecsok, Taylor Salo, Aaron Alexander‐Bloch, Dani S. Bassett, Margaret Gardner, Raquel E. Gur, Ruben C. Gur, Allyson P. Mackey, B. Misic, Tyler M. Moore, David R. Roalf, Russell T. Shinohara, Valerie J. Sydnor, Tien T. Tong, Fang‐Cheng Yeh, Russell A. Poldrack, Matthew Cieslak, Theodore D. Satterthwaite

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsHierarchyCognitionWhite matterAssociation (psychology)Projection (relational algebra)Bridge (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-range white matter (WM) tracts support cognition by enabling communication between distant cortical regions, which are organized along a hierarchy defined by the sensorimotor-to-association (S-A) axis. However, it remains unknown how WM tracts are positioned within the cortical hierarchy to support cognition. Here we show that WM tracts are differentially positioned in the cortical hierarchy to support specific cognitive functions, and that tracts spanning the hierarchy connect regions with greater cognitive diversity. Moreover, tracts situated within the same hierarchical level connect biologically similar regions, while those crossing the hierarchy bridge distinct biological milieux to support diverse cognitive functions. The placement of tracts in the cortical hierarchy also reflects developmental variation in tract microstructure and individual differences in cognition. Together, these findings provide a framework that moves beyond conventional categories of association or projection tracts and links WM tract anatomy to cortical organization, cognitive function, cortical neurobiology and neurodevelopment. We anticipate that this cortex-anchored framework for describing WM tracts may aid the interpretation of individual differences in WM structure related to development and behaviour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→