MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304481348 · doi:10.1002/hbm.26104

Identification of central amygdala and trigeminal motor nucleus connectivity in humans: An <scp>ultra‐high</scp> field diffusion <scp>MRI</scp> study

2022· article· en· W4304481348 on OpenAlexafffund
Batu Kaya, Paul Geha, Ivan E. de Araújo, Iacopo Cioffi, Massieh Moayedi

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationMount Sinai HospitalCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkDiscovery Centre
FundersNIH Blueprint for Neuroscience ResearchNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoFaculty of Dentistry, University of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeuroscienceConnectomeTractographyAmygdalaNucleusBrainstemCentral nucleus of the amygdalaStria terminalisDiffusion MRIBiologyPsychologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional connectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neuroanatomical circuitry of jaw muscles has been mostly explored in non-human animals. A recent rodent study revealed a novel circuit from the central amygdala (CeA) to the trigeminal motor nucleus (5M), which controls biting attacks. This circuit has yet to be delineated in humans. Ultra-high diffusion-weighted imaging data from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) allow in vivo delineation of circuits identified in other species-for example, the CeA-5M pathway-in humans. We hypothesized that the CeA-5M circuit could be resolved in humans at both 7 and 3 T. We performed probabilistic tractography between the CeA and 5M in 30 healthy young adults from the HCP database. As a negative control, we performed tractography between the basolateral amygdala (BLAT) and 5M, as CeA is the only amygdalar nucleus with extensive projections to the brainstem. Connectivity strength was operationalized as the number of streamlines between each region of interest. Connectivity strength between CeA-5M and BLAT-5M within each hemisphere was compared, and CeA-5M circuit had significantly stronger connectivity than the BLAT-5M circuit, bilaterally at both 7 T (all p < .001) and 3 T (all p < .001). This study is the first to delineate the CeA-5M circuit in humans.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207