MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997326091 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328300ebbf

Default mode network connectivity: effects of age, sex, and analytic approach

2008· article· en· W1997326091 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn Bluhm, Elizabeth Osuch, Ruth A. Lanius, Kristine Boksman, Richard W. J. Neufeld, Jean Théberge, Peter Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreHotel Dieu HospitalQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefault mode networkPrecuneusPosterior cingulatePrefrontal cortexPsychologyNeuroscienceCorrelationSet (abstract data type)Cortex (anatomy)Posterior parietal cortexTask-positive networkFunctional connectivityFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitionComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 'default mode network' is a set of brain regions showing correlated, low-frequency activity during rest. It includes the posterior cingulate/precuneus, medial prefrontal cortex, and bilateral inferior parietal cortex. Earlier studies have characterized this network using either region of interest-based correlation analyses or data-driven techniques; however, there is some disagreement over which method is superior. We conducted both types of analysis on a large (N=40) data set and also investigated age and sex differences in the network. Both region of interest-based analyses and independent component analysis identified the default mode network. Age and sex differences were small and there was less agreement between analytic techniques regarding age and sex effects than regarding default mode network structure.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations229
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207