Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of Standardized adult dentate-neuron surviving additions exceed 0.1% in one year., kept as it was published. It is an estimate from three models reading the evidence, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it did not set any price.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2026 07:03 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 44%
- Range the models covered
- 30–65%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
3f23574229838bfbb9099378323bb23d1a116431b5f29c08adab58a96f01243d
The hash commits to this round's recorded bytes. It does not prove the wording is sound or that the science is right.
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
Carbon dating supports appreciable adult neuronal addition, making the threshold plausible, but its model-dependent renewing-fraction turnover is not the specified standardized one-year surviving-addition fraction. The retrieved multiomic study supports neurogenic cell populations, not birth-dated mature-neuron survival. Neither establishes the required estimand with demographic transport and uncertainty, and no qualifying independent reproduction was identified; this does not establish the contrary.
What would change this view: Independent eligible birth-dating studies identifying one-year survival and standardized all-neuron rates, with intervals consistently above or below 0.001, would move my estimate decisively.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
The contract needs at least two independent peer-reviewed studies. Each must estimate this exact standardized one-year surviving-addition fraction with an all-neuron denominator and show an interval wholly above 0.001. Spalding et al. suggests a rough rate of about 0.6% per year of all neurons, which is above 0.001. But that estimate is not an identified one-year survival estimand, and it has no independent replication. The newer sources show progenitors and immature neurons, not birth-dated mature neurons.
What would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed birth-dating or lineage studies, each with at least 20 donors, that identify one-year survival and report all-neuron-denominator intervals wholly above 0.001 (YES) or wholly at or below it (NO)
x-ai/grok-4.7
No eligible study estimates the specified census-standardized one-year surviving addition of mature dentate granule neurons over all neurons. Spalding et al. 2013 reports 1.75% annual turnover only within a renewing fraction, and later progenitor studies do not identify this estimand or a 95% interval wholly above or below 0.001. The contract therefore stays unresolved.
What would change this view: An independent reproduced birth-dating estimate of this exact standardized mean with a 95% interval entirely above or below 0.001 would decide it.
Round 1: score 0.44
OpenAI estimated 0.65. Carbon dating supports appreciable adult neuronal addition, making the threshold plausible, but its model-dependent renewing-fraction turnover is not the specified standardized one-year surviving-addition fraction. The… Anthropic estimated 0.30. The contract needs at least two independent peer-reviewed studies. Each must estimate this exact standardized one-year surviving-addition fraction with an all-neuron denominator and show an interval wholly above 0.001.… xAI estimated 0.38. No eligible study estimates the specified census-standardized one-year surviving addition of mature dentate granule neurons over all neurons. Spalding et al. 2013 reports 1.75% annual turnover only within a renewing… The panel disagreed by 0.35, so read this average as soft. The three models did not return a unanimous confident binary, so the market is not decided.
No audit bundle is recorded for this round. A bundle from another round is not substituted for it.