Cortical Plasticity and the Development of Behavior After Early Frontal Cortical Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been known for over 100 years that frontal lobe injury in children is often associated with considerably more functional recovery than after similar injury in adulthood. Systematic study of frontal cortical injury in laboratory animals has shown that this recovery is tightly tied to developmental age: There is a brief window of time during cortical development during which the brain is able to compensate. Simply being young is not sufficient because injury prior to this critical period leads to miserable behavioral outcomes. For humans, the least favorable time for cortical injury is likely at the end of the gestational period, perhaps including the 1st month or so of life whereas the most favorable time is around 1 to 2 years of age. In addition to age, the extent of behavioral recovery is influenced by age at assessment, the nature of the behavioral assessment, sex, and lesion size. Anatomical studies have shown that functional recovery following early cortical injury is correlated with a reorganization of remaining cortical circuitry, including increased dendritic arborization and increased spine density. Recovery, and the compensatory anatomical changes, can also be potentiated by application of different treatments including behavioral therapy, trophic factors, and neuromodulators. Finally, there is preliminary evidence in laboratory animals to suggest that it may be possible to induce neural regeneration in the injured brain and that the regenerated brain functions to support functional recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".