MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213031564 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644995.v1

Characterization of the hemodynamic response of the hippocampal and parahippocampal regions using FMRI

2021· preprint· en· W4213031564 on OpenAlexafffund
Priyanka Mehta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHippocampal formationHemodynamicsNeuroscienceHaemodynamic responseHippocampusPerirhinal cortexNeuroimagingTemporal lobePsychologyParahippocampal gyrusEntorhinal cortexEpilepsyMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous neuroimaging studies have suggested a dominant role of the right medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures- the hippocampal and parahippocampal regions in spatial memory processing. However, the underlying physiological hemodynamic response functions (HRF) of the MTL substructures remain undefined. Given the neuroanatomical differences between these substructures, it is posited that their hemodynamic characteristics are distinct. In this study, the hemodynamic responses of the MTL substructures are investigated using an optimization algorithm that penalizes the curvature (i.e. second derivative) of HRF. The time-to-peak characteristic of the hemodynamic responses revealed that the right CA3 and DG subfields of the hippocampus are significantly more active than the right CA1 subfield during a specific spatial memory task. Further, the hemodynamic responses of the entorhinal, perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices are presented. Together, these findings may help advance our understanding of neurodegenerative diseases like epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease that are strongly associated to hippocampal dysfunction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→