A Review of Evidence Linking Disrupted Neural Plasticity to Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adaptations resulting from neural plasticity lead to changes in cognition and behaviour, which are strengthened through repeated exposure to the novel environment or stimulus. Learning and memory have been hypothesized to occur through modifications of the strength of neural circuits, particularly in the hippocampus and cortex. Cognitive deficits, specifically in executive functioning and negative symptoms, may be a corollary to deficits in neural plasticity. Moreover, the main excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters associated with neural plasticity have also been extensively investigated for their role in the cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) represents some of the most promising approaches to directly explore the physiological manifestations of neural plasticity in the human brain. Three TMS paradigms (use-dependent plasticity, paired associative stimulation, and repetitive TMS) have been used to evaluate neurophysiological measures of neural plasticity in the healthy brain and in patients with schizophrenia, and to examine the brain's responses to such stimulation. In schizophrenia, deficits in neural plasticity have been consistently shown which parallel the molecular evidence appearing to be entwined with this debilitating disorder. Such pathophysiology may underlie the learning and memory deficits that are key symptoms of this disorder and may even be a key mechanism involved in treatment with antipsychotics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".