From pattern to purpose: how comparative studies contribute to understanding the function of adult neurogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of adult neurogenesis has had an explosion of fruitful growth. Yet numerous uncertainties and challenges persist. Our review begins with a survey of species that show evidence of adult neurogenesis. We then discuss how neurogenesis varies across brain regions and point out that regional specializations can indicate functional adaptations. Lifespan and aging are key life-history traits. Whereas 'adult neurogenesis' is the common term in the literature, it does not reflect the reality of neurogenesis being primarily a 'juvenile' phenomenon. We discuss the sharp decline with age as a universal trait of neurogenesis with inevitable functional consequences. Finally, the main body of the review focuses on the function of neurogenesis in birds and mammals. Selected examples illustrate how our understanding of avian and mammalian neurogenesis can complement each other. It is clear that although the two phyla have some common features, the function of adult neurogenesis may not be similar between them and filling the gaps will help us understand neurogenesis as an evolutionarily conserved trait to meet particular ecological pressures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".