MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220703398 · doi:10.1093/brain/awac114

Human lesions and animal studies link the claustrum to perception, salience, sleep and pain

2022· review· en· W4220703398 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Huriye Atilgan, Max Doody, David K. Oliver, Thomas McGrath, Andrew M. Shelton, Irene Echeverria-Altuna, Irene Tracey, Vladyslav V. Vyazovskiy, Sanjay Manohar, Adam M. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsClaustrumSalience (neuroscience)PsychologyPerceptionPain perceptionSleep (system call)NeuroscienceAudiologyCognitive psychologyMedicineAnesthesiaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The claustrum is the most densely interconnected region in the human brain. Despite the accumulating data from clinical and experimental studies, the functional role of the claustrum remains unknown. Here, we systematically review claustrum lesion studies and discuss their functional implications. Claustral lesions are associated with an array of signs and symptoms, including changes in cognitive, perceptual and motor abilities; electrical activity; mental state; and sleep. The wide range of symptoms observed following claustral lesions do not provide compelling evidence to support prominent current theories of claustrum function such as multisensory integration or salience computation. Conversely, the lesions studies support the hypothesis that the claustrum regulates cortical excitability. We argue that the claustrum is connected to, or part of, multiple brain networks that perform both fundamental and higher cognitive functions. As a multifunctional node in numerous networks, this may explain the manifold effects of claustrum damage on brain and behaviour.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207