Memory, processing of emotional stimuli, and volume of limbic structures in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The limbic system is involved in memory and in processing of emotional stimuli. We measured volume of the hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus, and assessed their relative contribution to episodic memory and emotion identification in POMS. METHOD: = 18.1 ± 4.6 years; 49 female (64.5%)) completed the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB); 59 of 65 POMS participants and 69 out of 76 controls underwent 3 T MRI scanning. We derived age-adjusted Z-scores on accuracy and response time (RT) measures of episodic memory and emotion identification of the PCNB. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumetrics were normalized using the scaling factor computed by SIENAx. On PCNB tests that differed between groups, we used multiple linear regression to assess relationships between regional brain volumes and either episodic memory or emotion identification outcomes controlling for age, sex, accuracy/RT, and parental education. RESULTS: POMS participants were slower and less accurate than controls on the episodic memory domain but did not differ from controls on emotion outcomes. At the subtest level, POMS participants showed reduced accuracy on Word Memory (p = .002) and slower performance on Face Memory (p = .04) subtests. POMS participants had smaller total and regional brain volumes of the hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus (p values ≤ 0.01). Collapsing across groups, both hippocampal and thalamic volume were significant predictors of Word Memory accuracy; hippocampal volume (B = 0.24, SE = 0.10, p = .02) was more strongly associated with Word Memory performance than thalamic volume (B = 0.16, SE = 0.05, p = .003), though the estimate with was less precise. CONCLUSIONS: POMS participants showed reduced episodic memory performance compared to controls. Aspects of episodic memory performance were associated with hippocampal and thalamic volume. Emotion identification was intact, despite volume loss in the amygdala.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".