MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221134347 · doi:10.1016/j.jbc.2022.101866

Understanding the physical basis of memory: Molecular mechanisms of the engram

2022· review· en· W4221134347 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Ortega‐de San Luis, Tomás J. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngramMemory consolidationNeuroscienceEncoding (memory)RecallMemory formationMammalian brainLong-term memoryCognitive sciencePsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyHippocampusCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory, defined as the storage and use of learned information in the brain, is necessary to modulate behavior and critical for animals to adapt to their environments and survive. Despite being a cornerstone of brain function, questions surrounding the molecular and cellular mechanisms of how information is encoded, stored, and recalled remain largely unanswered. One widely held theory is that an engram is formed by a group of neurons that are active during learning, which undergoes biochemical and physical changes to store information in a stable state, and that are later reactivated during recall of the memory. In the past decade, the development of engram labeling methodologies has proven useful to investigate the biology of memory at the molecular and cellular levels. Engram technology allows the study of individual memories associated with particular experiences and their evolution over time, with enough experimental resolution to discriminate between different memory processes: learning (encoding), consolidation (the passage from short-term to long-term memories), and storage (the maintenance of memory in the brain). Here, we review the current understanding of memory formation at a molecular and cellular level by focusing on insights provided using engram technology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations95
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207