MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2615275407

Cortical Thickness as a Predictor of Amygdala Reactivity in Healthy Adults

2015· dissertation· en· W2615275407 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christina Erika Pataky

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute
KeywordsAmygdalaFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyMagnetic resonance imagingAudiologyNeuroscienceAffect (linguistics)Reactivity (psychology)White matterMedicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cortico-limbic affective processing regions undergo structural and functional changes with aging. However, there are no investigations into the relationships between measures of cortical thinning and affective functional reactivity in older adults. Methods: Two groups of Caucasian men (n = 10 each, aged 60 – 85 years, and aged 20 – 40 years) underwent structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging during which they completed affective and sensorimotor (control) tasks administered according to a blocked design. Results: Age groups were comparable in amygdalae response to negative affect. Older men were best distinguished from young by thinning of the gray matter in bilateral frontal, parietal and temporal lobes. Greater mean right amygdala activation was best predicted by a pattern of left orbito- and middle frontal cortical thickness/thinning in older men. Conclusion: Even in the absence of age differences in amygdalae activation, prefrontal structure alterations uniquely influence emotional amygdala response in healthy older adults.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→