MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922197220 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22153

Volumetric analysis of medial temporal lobe subregions in developmental amnesia using high‐resolution magnetic resonance imaging

2013· article· en· W1922197220 on OpenAlexafffund
Rosanna K. Olsen, Daniela J. Palombo, Jennifer S. Rabin, Brian Levine, Jennifer D. Ryan, R. Shayna Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsSubiculumHippocampusAmnesiaTemporal lobeNeuroscienceEntorhinal cortexPsychologyHippocampal formationPerirhinal cortexParahippocampal gyrusMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineCognitive psychologyEpilepsyRadiologyDentate gyrus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is great interest in the cognitive consequences of hippocampal volume loss in developmental amnesia (DA). In many DA cases, volume loss occurs before the hippocampus is fully developed, and yet little is known about the locus, extent, and distribution of damage in these cases. We used high-resolution MRI to manually segment the medial temporal lobe (MTL) subregions in H.C., an adult with DA, and a group of sex-, age- and education-matched control participants (n = 10). The hippocampus was defined and divided into anterior (head) and posterior (body and tail) segments. Within the body of the hippocampus, the subregions (CA1 , DG/CA2/3 , and subiculum) were defined. Finally, the entorhinal (ERC), perirhinal (PRC), and parahippocampal (PHC) cortices were segmented. Anterior hippocampus was reduced bilaterally and posterior hippocampus was significantly reduced on the right. In the body of the hippocampus, all three subregions were reduced in the left hemisphere, whereas CA1 and subiculum were reduced in the right hemisphere. No group differences were observed in the PRC and ERC, whereas left PHC volume was marginally increased in H.C. compared to controls. These results can be used to inform patterns of spared and impaired cognitive abilities in DA and perhaps in amnesia more generally.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations84
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207