S41-01 - The Neural Organization of the Hippocampus and Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disturbances of explicit memory functions in schizophrenia are widely recognized. More precisely the mechanisms related to the episodic memory subsystem seem to play a significant role in the pathophysiology of the disease. Errors during the encoding phase could be responsible for this dysfunction even if retrieval per se is not totally spared. The main process in encoding episodic memory is contextual binding as evidenced by numerous neuropsychological studies. Since the hippocampal formation is considered to be the central element for contextual binding the neural support of this last mechanism is most likely rooted in the hippocampus. This assumption is confirmed by numerous neuroanatomical, neurodevelopmental, biochemical and genetic studies reporting a significant disorganization of the neural network and its scaffolding structure at the level of the hippocampus. More precisely a synaptic disorganization within the CA3 and CA1 regions (pyramidal cells and neurons) could explain for which reason episodic memory processes are impaired in schizophrenia. Associative binding occurred at the CA3 the level of the hippocampus. This corresponds to the crucial role of this region for acquiring representations of stimulus conjunction. In particular the spatial characteristics of a stimulus are probably bound thanks to the activity of the CA3 area. We hypothesize that separated CA3 representations are not correctly formed in schizophrenia. Consequently the flow which comes to the cortex into the entorhinal pathway and then to the dentate gyrus and CA3 does not result in a pattern of separated representations. Evidences supporting this hypothesis will be presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".