MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119895206 · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01571-3

Chimpanzee histology and functional brain imaging show that the paracingulate sulcus is not human-specific

2021· article· en· W3119895206 on OpenAlexafffund
Céline Amiez, Jérôme Sallet, Jennifer Novek, Fadila Hadj‐Bouziane, Camille Giacometti, Jesper Andersson, William D. Hopkins, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de LyonNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Institutes of HealthHuman Frontier Science ProgramGovernment of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsSulcusHuman brainNeurosciencePrimateCortex (anatomy)Superior temporal sulcusPsychologyCentral sulcusFunctional magnetic resonance imagingBiologyMotor cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paracingulate sulcus -PCGS- has been considered for a long time to be specific to the human brain. Its presence/absence has been discussed in relation to interindividual variability of personality traits and cognitive abilities. Recently, a putative PCGS has been observed in chimpanzee brains. To demonstrate that this newly discovered sulcus is the homologue of the PCGS in the human brain, we analyzed cytoarchitectonic and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data in chimpanzee brains which did or did not display a PCGS. The results show that the organization of the mid-cingulate cortex of the chimpanzee brain is comparable to that of the human brain, both cytoarchitectonically and in terms of functional connectivity with the lateral frontal cortex. These results demonstrate that the PCGS is not human-specific but is a shared feature of the primate brain since at least the last common ancestor to humans and great apes ~6 mya.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207