Volumes of the Hippocampal Formation Differentiate Component Processes of Memory in a Community Sample of Homeless and Marginally Housed Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Persons who are homeless or marginally housed exhibit significant cognitive dysfunction, with memory being the most impaired domain. Hippocampal subfield volumes have been found to differentially relate to component processes of memory. The neural correlates of memory have not been previously examined in marginalized persons who are understudied and underserved. We examined whether hippocampal subfields and entorhinal cortex volumes are uniquely related to indices of verbal episodic memory using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised. METHOD: Data was used from a large sample of community dwelling homeless and marginally housed adults (N = 227). Regression analyses were conducted to examine hippocampal subfield volumes (CA1, CA3, CA4, dentate gyrus, subiculum) and entorhinal cortex, and their associations with measures of verbal immediate recall, learning slope, and verbal delayed recall. RESULTS: Greater CA3 subfield volume was associated with better performance on an index of encoding (immediate recall), but only in older individuals. Greater CA1 and subiculum volumes were associated with better performance on immediate and delayed recall (measures that tap into retrieval processes), but not with learning slope (a more pure index of encoding). Entorhinal cortex volume was related to all components of memory beyond total hippocampal volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest common neuroanatomical correlates of memory dysfunction in large sample of marginalized persons, and these are uniquely related to different components of memory. These findings have clinical relevance for marginalized populations and theoretical relevance to the growing literature on functional specialization of the hippocampal subfields.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".