Association between hippocampal structure and serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) in healthy adults: A registered report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hippocampus is a highly plastic brain structure supporting functions central to human cognition. Morphological changes in the hippocampus have been implicated in development, aging, as well as in a broad range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. A growing body of research suggests that hippocampal plasticity is closely linked to the actions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). However, evidence on the relationship between hippocampal volume (HCV) and peripheral BDNF levels is scarce and limited to elderly and patient populations. Further, despite evidence that BDNF expression differs throughout the hippocampus and is implicated in adult neurogenesis specifically in the dentate gyrus, no study has so far related peripheral BDNF levels to the volumes of individual hippocampal subfields. Besides its clinical implications, BDNF-facilitated hippocampal plasticity plays an important role in regulating cognitive and affective processes. In the current registered report, we investigated how serum BDNF (sBDNF) levels relate to volumes of the hippocampal formation and its subfields in a large sample of healthy adults (N = 279, 160 f) with a broad age range (20-55 years, mean 40.5) recruited in the context of the ReSource Project. We related HCV to basal sBDNF and, in a subsample (n = 103, 57 f), to acute stress-reactive change in sBDNF. We further tested the role of age as a moderator of both associations. Contrary to our hypotheses, neither basal sBDNF levels nor stress-reactive sBDNF change were associated with total HCV or volume of the dentate gyrus/cornu ammonis 4 (DG/CA4) subfield. We also found no evidence for a moderating effect of age on any of these associations. Our null results provide a first point of reference on the relationship between sBDNF and HCV in healthy mid-age, in contrast to patient or aging populations. We suggest that sBDNF levels have limited predictive value for morphological differences of the hippocampal structure when notable challenge to its neuronal integrity or to neurotrophic capacity is absent.
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 | 0.000 | 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".