MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226167020 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110669

An evolutionary gap in primate default mode network organization

2022· article· en· W4226167020 on OpenAlexaff
Clément M. Garin, Yuki Hori, Stefan Everling, Christopher T. Whitlow, Finnegan J. Calabro, Beatríz Luna, Mathilda Froesel, Maëva Gacoin, Suliann Ben Hamed, Marc Dhénain, Christos Constantinidis

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDefault mode networkPrimateNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexCognitionBiologyPutamenPosterior cingulateFunctional connectivityPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human default mode network (DMN) is engaged at rest and in cognitive states such as self-directed thoughts. Interconnected homologous cortical areas in primates constitute a network considered as the equivalent. Here, based on a cross-species comparison of the DMN between humans and non-hominoid primates (macaques, marmosets, and mouse lemurs), we report major dissimilarities in connectivity profiles. Most importantly, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of non-hominoid primates is poorly engaged with the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), though strong correlated activity between the human PCC and the mPFC is a key feature of the human DMN. Instead, a fronto-temporal resting-state network involving the mPFC was detected consistently across non-hominoid primate species. These common functional features shared between non-hominoid primates but not with humans suggest a substantial gap in the organization of the primate's DMN and its associated cognitive functions.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations79
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207