MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385693110 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhad276

Development of human hippocampal subfield microstructure and relation to associative inference

2023· article· en· W4385693110 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Vinci‐Booher, Margaret L. Schlichting, Alison R. Preston, Franco Pestilli

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNational Institute of Mental HealthKavli FoundationNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringWellcome TrustNational Defense Science and Engineering GraduateU.S. Department of DefenseNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubiculumInferenceHippocampal formationDentate gyrusHippocampusNeuroscienceAssociative propertyPsychologyPerceptionComputer scienceBiologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207