Hippocampal subfields and limbic white matter jointly predict learning rate in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Age-related memory impairments have been linked to differences in structural brain parameters, including cerebral white matter (WM) microstructure and hippocampal (HC) volume, but their combined influences are rarely investigated. In a population-based sample of 337 older participants 61–82 years of age (M age =69.66, SD age =3.92 years) we modeled the independent and joint effects of limbic WM microstructure and HC subfield volumes on verbal learning. Participants completed a verbal learning task over five learning trials and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including structural and diffusion scans. We segmented three HC subregions on high-resolution MRI data and sampled mean fractional anisotropy (FA) from bilateral limbic WM tracts identified via deterministic fiber tractography. Using structural equation modeling, we evaluated the associations between learning rate and latent factors representing FA sampled from limbic WM tracts, and HC subfield volumes, as well as their latent interaction. Results showed limbic WM and the interaction of HC and WM – but not HC volume alone – predicted verbal learning rates. Model decomposition revealed HC volume is only positively associated with learning rate in individuals with higher levels of WM anisotropy. We conclude that structural characteristics of limbic WM regions and HC volume jointly contribute to verbal learning in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".