MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402996279 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.29.615675

The Hurst exponent as a marker of inhibition in the developing brain

2024· preprint· en· W4402996279 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Monami Nishio, Monica E Ellwood-Lowe, Mackenzie Woodburn, Cassidy L. McDermott, Anne T. Park, Ursula A. Tooley, Austin L. Boroshok, Joanes Grandjean, Allyson P. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicATP Synthase and ATPases Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJacobs FoundationCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of PennsylvaniaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHurst exponentExponentStatistical physicsPsychologyEconometricsMathematicsNeurosciencePhysicsStatisticsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The maturation of inhibitory neurons is crucial for regulating plasticity in developing brains. Previous work using computational models has suggested that the Hurst exponent, the decay in power over frequency, reflects inhibition, but empirical data supporting this link is sparse. Here, we took a cross-species approach to validating the Hurst exponent of fMRI as a marker of inhibition, then characterized the development of the Hurst exponent in childhood. We found significant spatial correlations between the Hurst exponent and ex vivo parvalbumin mRNA expression in human children and adults, and between the Hurst exponent and parvalbumin-positive cell counts in mice. We identified a plateau in the mRNA expression by late childhood, aligning with the Hurst exponent plateau in both humans and rats. In sum, this work suggests that the Hurst exponent can be used to study the development of inhibition in vivo , and in the future, to understand individual differences in plasticity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicATP Synthase and ATPases ResearchFrench-language works237,207