Additional file 1 of Alcohol-induced damage to the fimbria/fornix reduces hippocampal-prefrontal cortex connection during early abstinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementary Figures: Supplementary Figure 1. Short and long-term synaptic plasticity are preserved in the hippocampus of PD rats. (A) Pair pulse stimulation of the perforant pathway. Suprathreshold and equal intensity pairs of pulses (upper panel) are delivered at varying inter-stimulus time intervals (ISI). The results (lower panel) are expressed as the PS amplitude ratio (PS2/PS1). PS ratios below 1 indicate response depression and vice versa. Insets show pair pulse inhibition (left) and facilitation (right). (B) LTP of the perforant pathway. The upper panel shows the stimulation protocol used to induce LTP. Lower panel: synaptic potentiation in PD (orange) and control (black) rats quantified as the percentage increase of the PS amplitude after vs. before LTP induction. (C) Same as B but for the EPSP slope. (D) Evolution of the PS amplitude in response to perforant path stimulation before and 1 h after LTP induction. LTP protocol is applied at minute 6 (lasting 16 min) and PS amplitude is not tested until 1h later (grey shadow). The PS is normalized to pre-LTP measurements, and averaged across animals (n=5 per group). Data represents mean ± SEM. Supplementary Figure 2. Effect size of FA alterations in AUD patients analyzed with CSF correction (see Methods). Supplementary Figure 3. Effect size of FA alterations in a group of AUD patients chosen to avoid the age differences between groups. Supplementary Figure 4. Linear correlations between FA in the fimbria/fornix and cognitive variables: (A) NST, (B) TMT-A, (C) TMT-B, (D) number of perseverative errors in the WCST, (E) reaction times in the WCST, and (F) the Stroop test. (G) Correlation between FA in the fimbria/fornix and age. Supplementary Table 1. List of regions employed for the effect size analysis. Supplementary Table 2. List of cognitive test scores and age from AUD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.912 | 0.172 |
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".