MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005865658 · doi:10.1002/hipo.23196

Uncal apex position varies with normal aging

2020· article· en· W3005865658 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Poppenk

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute on AgingBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsHippocampal formationHippocampusApex (geometry)Position (finance)NeuroscienceReference frameFrame of referencePsychologyAnatomyComputer scienceBiologyFrame (networking)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uncal apex is an anatomical landmark frequently used for segmenting the hippocampus into its anterior and posterior segments, a necessary step for computing many measurements of its long axis. It functions well, as it is both local to the hippocampus and easy to identify. However, in spite of widespread use and definition in the EADC-ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol (HarP), how the uncal apex is influenced by gross hippocampal changes during normal aging has not been established, nor has the possible impact on measures of anterior hippocampus (aHPC) and posterior hippocampus (pHPC) volume. Here I drew upon three large data sets to describe and confirm these relationships, investigating them in one large data set and replicating my findings in the two others, evaluating a total of 4,434 hippocampi. I found the uncal apex fell in an increasingly more anterior position with increasing age. This age-related retraction of the uncus began after age 36, with the sharpest effects arising after age 60. This phenomenon exaggerates age-related aHPC volume decreases while simultaneously underestimating age-related pHPC volume decreases, a pattern I confirmed by juxtaposing uncal apex and MNI space-based landmarking. A hippocampally based reference frame was also rendered unstable by age-related shifts in the posterior extent of the hippocampus. Both the uncal apex and hippocampal reference frame should therefore be used with caution in aging research, or in research involving other demographic or disease factors known to evoke gross changes in the hippocampus. Instead, MNI coordinate-based heuristics may be appropriate for segmenting the hippocampus in study designs involving such factors. Apex-based segmentation is still attractive, however, in study designs where advanced age and atrophy are not used as regressors, including investigations into long-axis effects in healthy young adults. Progress toward localizing functional divisions within the hippocampus is needed to identify best practices for the field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207