HIPPOCAMPAL ROLES IN TRAUMA RECALL FOR PTSD AND SUBTYPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric condition that may occur after exposure to a traumatic event such as sexual assault. One of its most noticeable adverse effects is abnormality in recalling traumatic memories, leading to severe distress and the sensation that the trauma is unfolding in the present moment. The dissociative subtype of PTSD (PTSD+DS) is a distinct form of PTSD with rather different symptoms, including emotional numbing and dissociative symptoms of depersonalization and derealization. Individuals with PTSD+DS tend to recall trauma memories from an out-of-body or third- person perspective, presumably as a maladaptive mechanism to distance themselves from the trauma. Many brain areas involved in episodic memory exhibit structural and functional abnormalities in PTSD, including the hippocampus, a core component of the episodic memory system. However, findings regarding the hippocampal role in the neurocircuitry of PTSD are rather inconsistent. These inconsistencies may stem from the often overlooked different functions of the anterior (aHipp) and posterior hippocampus (pHipp). The aHipp is primarily involved in processing the emotional aspects of episodic memories, while the pHipp is more involved in spatial and contextual processing. We therefore hypothesized that the aHipp would be more dominant during trauma memory recall in classic PTSD compared to the pHipp. In PTSD+DS, we expected the dominance of the aHipp to di- minish. Our findings mainly supported our predictions. Graph-theoretic analyses revealed the aHipp to be a dominant hub in the brain in classic PTSD during both resting state and trauma memory recall. In PTSD+DS, however, the aHipp did not emerge as a hub, and instead, the pHipp assumed a more pronounced role. Our findings advance the current understanding of the hippocampal roles in PTSD and PTSD+DS and may guide future therapeutic efforts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".