MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883082892 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00255

Evaluating the effect of aging on interference resolution with time-varying complex networks analysis

2015· article· en· W1883082892 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Ariza, Elena Solesio‐Jofre, Johann H. Martínez, José A. Pineda‐Pardo, Guiomar Niso, Fernando MaestÃo, Javier M. BuldÃo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFundación CarolinaDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsInterference (communication)Resolution (logic)Computer sciencePsychologyTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we used graph theory analysis to investigate age-related reorganization of functional networks during the active maintenance of information that is interrupted by external interference. Additionally, we sought to investigate network differences before and after averaging network parameters between both maintenance and interference windows. We compared young and older adults by measuring their magnetoencephalographic recordings during an interference-based working memory task restricted to successful recognitions. Data analysis focused on the topology/temporal evolution of functional networks during both the maintenance and interference windows. We observed that: a) Older adults require higher synchronization between cortical brain sites in order to achieve a successful recognition, b) The main differences between age groups arise during the interference window c) Older adults show reduced ability to reorganize network topology when interference is introduced, and d) Averaging network parameters leads to a loss of sensitivity to detect age differences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207