MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049742025 · doi:10.1159/000213674

Exploratory Drive, Frontal Lobe Function and Adipsia in Aging

2009· review· en· W2049742025 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Lalonde, Ruxandra Badescu

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeophobiaPrefrontal cortexFrontal lobeApathyNeurosciencePsychologySpontaneous alternationFrontal cortexThirstMedicinePhysiologyDevelopmental psychologyHippocampusCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging in animals in accompanied by a decrease in exploratory drive, as assessed by hole poking and spontaneous alternation tests. This decrease is caused either by increased fear of the novel testing environment (neophobia) or by apathy. Either cause may be related to dysfunction of prefrontal cortex-related pathways. The myelination of the prefrontal cortex appears late in ontogeny. In accordance to the last-in first-out principle, this brain region seems to be affected early during aging. It remains to be determined whether this decrease of exploratory behavior is reversible by behavioral intervention, by dietary changes or by the administration of psychotropic drugs. One hypothesis worth testing is whether the decrease in exploration is associated to the well-described adipsia in human aging, whose neurobiological basis has not yet been determined. It is possible to consider that the maladaptive response to thirst is responsible for some senescent changes in the brain and that reversal of adipsia by behavioral, dietary or pharmacological means improves the quality of life in the elderly.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207