Development of human hippocampal subfield microstructure and relation to associative inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hippocampus is a complex brain structure composed of subfields that each have distinct cellular organizations. While the volume of hippocampal subfields displays age-related changes that have been associated with inference and memory functions, the degree to which the cellular organization within each subfield is related to these functions throughout development is not well understood. We employed an explicit model testing approach to characterize the development of tissue microstructure and its relationship to performance on 2 inference tasks, one that required memory (memory-based inference) and one that required only perceptually available information (perception-based inference). We found that each subfield had a unique relationship with age in terms of its cellular organization. While the subiculum (SUB) displayed a linear relationship with age, the dentate gyrus (DG), cornu ammonis field 1 (CA1), and cornu ammonis subfields 2 and 3 (combined; CA2/3) displayed nonlinear trajectories that interacted with sex in CA2/3. We found that the DG was related to memory-based inference performance and that the SUB was related to perception-based inference; neither relationship interacted with age. Results are consistent with the idea that cellular organization within hippocampal subfields might undergo distinct developmental trajectories that support inference and memory performance throughout development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".