The minimal computational substrate of fluid intelligence

The quantification of cognitive powers rests on identifying a behavioural task that depends on them. Such dependence cannot be assured, for the powers a task invokes cannot be experimentally controlled or constrained a priori, resulting in unknown vulnerability to failure of specificity and generalisability. Evaluating a compact version of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM), a widely used clinical test of fluid intelligence, we show that LaMa, a self-supervised artificial neural network trained solely on the completion of partially masked images of natural environmental scenes, achieves human-level test scores a prima vista, without any task-specific inductive bias or training. Compared with cohorts of healthy and focally lesioned participants, LaMa exhibits human-like variation with item difficulty, and produces errors characteristic of right frontal lobe damage under degradation of its ability to integrate global spatial patterns. LaMa's narrow training and limited capacity -- comparable to the nervous system of the fruit fly -- suggest RAPM may be open to computationally simple solutions that need not necessarily invoke abstract reasoning.

Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research

The value of biomedical research--a $1.7 trillion annual investment--is ultimately determined by its downstream, real-world impact. Current objective predictors of impact rest on proxy, reductive metrics of dissemination, such as paper citation rates, whose relation to real-world translation remains unquantified. Here we sought to determine the comparative predictability of future real-world translation--as indexed by inclusion in patents, guidelines or policy documents--from complex models of the abstract-level content of biomedical publications versus citations and publication meta-data alone. We develop a suite of representational and discriminative mathematical models of multi-scale publication data, quantifying predictive performance out-of-sample, ahead-of-time, across major biomedical domains, using the entire corpus of biomedical research captured by Microsoft Academic Graph from 1990 to 2019, encompassing 43.3 million papers across all domains. We show that citations are only moderately predictive of translational impact as judged by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents. By contrast, high-dimensional models of publication titles, abstracts and metadata exhibit high fidelity (AUROC > 0.9), generalise across time and thematic domain, and transfer to the task of recognising papers of Nobel Laureates. The translational impact of a paper indexed by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents can be predicted--out-of-sample and ahead-of-time--with substantially higher fidelity from complex models of its abstract-level content than from models of publication meta-data or citation metrics. We argue that content-based models of impact are superior in performance to conventional, citation-based measures, and sustain a stronger evidence-based claim to the objective measurement of translational potential.