ArticleMolecular autism2025
Subgrouping autism and ADHD based on structural MRI population modelling centiles.
Article in Molecular autism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gray matter subtyping with SuStaIn reveals neuroanatomical patterns in autism spectrum disorder.Brain imaging and behavior · 2026Article
- From heterogeneity to translation: data‑driven subtyping of autism in a multilevel framework.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- Optimizing functional connectivity scanning conditions for predicting autistic traits.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Precision neurodiversity: personalized brain network architecture as a window into cognitive variability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are two highly heterogeneous neurodevelopmental conditions with variable underlying neurobiology. Imaging studies have yielded varied results, and it is now clear that there is unlikely to be one characteristic neuroanatomical profile of either condition. Parsing this heterogeneity could allow us to identify more homogeneous subgroups, either within or across conditions, which may be more clinically informative. This has been a pivotal goal for neurodevelopmental research using both clinical and neuroanatomical features, though results thus far have again been inconsistent with regards to the number and characteristics of subgroups.
methodsHere, we use population modelling to cluster a multi-site dataset based on global and regional centile scores of cortical thickness, surface area and grey matter volume. We use HYDRA, a novel semi-supervised machine learning algorithm which clusters based on differences to controls and compare its performance to a traditional clustering approach.
resultsWe identified distinct subgroups within autism and ADHD, as well as across diagnosis, often with opposite neuroanatomical alterations relatively to controls. These subgroups were characterised by different combinations of increased or decreased patterns of morphometrics. We did not find significant clinical differences across subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Crucially, however, the number of subgroups and their membership differed vastly depending on chosen features and the algorithm used, highlighting the impact and importance of careful method selection.
conclusionsWe highlight the importance of examining heterogeneity in autism and ADHD and demonstrate that population modelling is a useful tool to study subgrouping in autism and ADHD. We identified subgroups with distinct patterns of alterations relative to controls but note that these results rely heavily on the algorithm used and encourage detailed reporting of methods and features used in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.