MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Aging Hippocampus: Navigating Between Rat and Human Experiments

2005· review· en· W187277792 on OpenAlexaff
Ira Driscoll, Robert J. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in the Neurosciences · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampusNeuroscienceCognitionPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMemory impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is associated with impairments in certain aspects of cognition, especially learning and memory. The hippocampus is a structure intimately involved with certain aspects of learning and memory, and is especially vulnerable to the course of aging. Recent findings, primarily from cognitive, magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies, but also briefly physiology and neurogenesis work, are reviewed. Evidence suggests that age-related impairment of hippocampus-dependent cognition is associated with changes on various levels of investigation in both humans and non-human animals. Also, the emphasis is placed on tasks and techniques that can be used to test both non-human and human animals in an attempt to bridge the gulf between the vast bodies of knowledge about the hippocampus in different species. To the extent that changes with normal aging are understood, they may aid in diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of age-related learning and memory deficits in both normal and pathological aging. In addition, studies of the aging hippocampus may have a side-effect in leading to a better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie learning and memory in general.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations115
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in the NeurosciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207