"The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood."
The old textbook claim that your brain is fixed after childhood — that you're born with all the neurons you'll ever have — has been directly contradicted by multiple independent lines of peer-reviewed research.
What Was Claimed?
For most of the 20th century, neuroscience taught that adult brains cannot grow new neurons. This was considered a fundamental feature of the nervous system: neurons, unlike skin or blood cells, were thought to be irreplaceable once development ended. If you've ever heard someone say "you're killing brain cells" as a warning against certain behaviors, or that brain damage can never truly heal, this dogma is part of what that belief rests on. It turns out that for at least one region of the brain — the hippocampus — this claim is simply wrong.
What Did We Find?
The hippocampus is a brain structure central to memory and learning. Deep within it lies a region called the dentate gyrus, and it is here that new neurons continue to be born well into old age. A 2019 study published in Nature Medicine examined brain tissue from neurologically healthy adults ranging in age from 43 to 87 and found thousands of immature neurons — the hallmark of ongoing neurogenesis — per cubic millimeter of tissue. The key to this result was methodological precision: the researchers obtained brain samples within four hours of death, because the markers used to identify young neurons degrade quickly after the brain is no longer alive.
That timing detail matters enormously, and it explains why the science in this area has been contentious. A 2018 study published in Nature reached the opposite conclusion — that adult neurogenesis is absent or extremely rare in humans — using samples with postmortem delays of up to 48 hours. The field's consensus, reflected in an 18-author review also published in 2018 in Cell Stem Cell, is that this negative result is a fixation artifact, not a true biological finding. When tissue quality is controlled, new neurons are consistently found.
That consensus review is itself a significant piece of evidence. Eighteen neuroscientists from multiple countries, surveying the full body of research, concluded there is "no reason to abandon the idea that adult-generated neurons make important functional contributions to neural plasticity and cognition across the human life span." Consensus reviews of this scale are rare in neuroscience, and this one was written specifically to address the controversy.
A 2021 study in the Journal of Neuroscience reinforced the picture further, describing adult hippocampal neurogenesis as "a robust phenomenon" that persists through physiological aging and is measurably disrupted in Alzheimer's disease — a finding with direct clinical implications. The fact that neurogenesis is impaired in a disease context suggests it's not a marginal or vestigial process; it appears to be actively maintained and functionally relevant.
What Should You Keep In Mind?
The scientific debate here is real, not manufactured. Sorrells et al. 2018 is a serious paper in a top journal, and researchers continue to refine how neurogenesis is measured. The key contested variable — tissue fixation quality — means that studies with less careful protocols will continue to produce negative results, which can sustain the appearance of ongoing controversy even as the methodologically stronger evidence points clearly in one direction.
It's also worth noting that this research applies specifically to the hippocampus. Whether other brain regions support adult neurogenesis in humans remains an open question; the evidence here does not support a sweeping claim that the entire adult human brain regenerates freely. The dentate gyrus is a specific site, and what happens there may not generalize.
Finally, the functional significance of adult-born neurons — how much they contribute to memory, mood, or cognitive resilience compared to existing neurons — is still being studied. Neurogenesis occurs; what it does for you is a separate and active area of research.
How Was This Verified?
This claim was evaluated by counting independent peer-reviewed sources that directly confirm adult hippocampal neurogenesis in humans, with a threshold of three sources required for a disproof verdict. Three sources were identified and verified by live retrieval of their source pages. You can read the full findings in the structured proof report, examine every citation and check in the full verification audit, or re-run the proof yourself.
What could challenge this verdict?
1. Is there credible evidence that adult neurogenesis does NOT occur?
Yes — Sorrells et al. 2018 (Nature 555:377–381) is the most prominent counter-evidence. Using 17 post-mortem controls (age 18–77) and 12 surgical resections from epilepsy patients, the authors concluded that "neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus does not continue, or is extremely rare, in adult humans."
However, the field has traced this negative result to a methodological artifact: postmortem delay (PMD). Doublecortin (DCX), the primary immunohistochemical marker for immature neurons, degrades rapidly after death. The Sorrells samples had PMDs of up to 48 hours. Boldrini et al. 2018 (Cell Stem Cell), published the same month, found persistent neurogenesis using PMDs ≤ 26 hours. Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019 used PMDs < 4 hours and found thousands of immature neurons. The 18-author Kempermann et al. 2018 review explicitly addressed the Sorrells controversy and concluded adult neurogenesis persists. The Sorrells finding does not break the disproof.
2. Is adult neurogenesis confirmed only in rodents, not humans specifically?
No. Multiple human-specific studies using independent methodologies confirm AHN in humans: Eriksson et al. 1998 (Nature Medicine) used BrdU incorporation in post-mortem cancer patients; Spalding et al. 2013 (Cell) used radiocarbon (14C) retrospective birthdating — an approach entirely independent of immunohistochemical markers. These human-specific findings rule out a species-specificity exclusion.
3. Could "adulthood" be interpreted to exclude the ages studied?
No. Moreno-Jiménez 2019 confirmed neurogenesis in subjects aged 43–87; Llorens-Martín 2021 documents persistence "until the 10th decade of human life." Under any conventional definition of adulthood (post-18, post-25, or otherwise), neurogenesis persists well into the range studied.
Sources
| Source | ID | Type | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019, Nature Medicine (PubMed abstract) | B1 | Government | Yes |
| Kempermann et al. 2018, Cell Stem Cell (PMC) | B2 | Government | Yes |
| Llorens-Martín et al. 2021, Journal of Neuroscience (PMC) | B3 | Government | Yes |
| Count of independent sources confirming adult neurogenesis in humans (rejecting the claim) | A1 | — | Computed |
detailed evidence
Evidence Summary
| ID | Fact | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| B1 | Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019, Nature Medicine — thousands of immature neurons identified in human dentate gyrus up to the 9th decade | Yes |
| B2 | Kempermann et al. 2018, Cell Stem Cell — 18-author consensus review; no reason to abandon adult-generated neurons across the life span | Yes |
| B3 | Llorens-Martín et al. 2021, Journal of Neuroscience — AHN is a robust phenomenon in the human hippocampus during physiological and pathologic aging | Yes |
| A1 | Count of independent sources confirming adult neurogenesis in humans | Computed: 3 sources confirmed |
Source: proof.py JSON summary
Proof Logic
The claim rests on the old neuroscience dogma that the adult mammalian brain is post-mitotic — that no new neurons are generated after development. This dogma began to break down in the 1990s.
Three independent lines of evidence disprove the claim:
B1 — Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019 (Nature Medicine). Using human brain samples obtained under tightly controlled postmortem delay (PMD < 4 hours) combined with state-of-the-art tissue processing, the authors "identified thousands of immature neurons in the DG of neurologically healthy human subjects up to the ninth decade of life." The subjects ranged in age from 43 to 87 years — spanning the full breadth of conventional adulthood. This is the strongest primary-evidence source, because the methodology directly addresses the main contested variable in the field (tissue fixation quality).
B2 — Kempermann et al. 2018 (Cell Stem Cell). This 18-author consensus review was published specifically in response to conflicting reports (including Sorrells 2018, discussed below). The authors surveyed the full state of the field and concluded: "there is currently no reason to abandon the idea that adult-generated neurons make important functional contributions to neural plasticity and cognition across the human life span." The breadth of authorship (18 leading researchers across multiple institutions) gives this source exceptional weight as a scientific consensus statement.
B3 — Llorens-Martín et al. 2021 (Journal of Neuroscience). This primary research article presents direct immunohistochemical evidence and states: "adult neurogenesis is a robust phenomenon that occurs in the human hippocampus during physiological and pathologic aging." The study also documents that AHN persists until the 10th decade of human life and is impaired in Alzheimer's disease, establishing clinical relevance.
All three sources are independently authored, use different methodologies, and converge on the same conclusion: the human brain does generate new neurons in adulthood. Source count: n_confirming = 3 ≥ 3 (threshold) → claim_holds = True → DISPROVED.
Conclusion
Verdict: DISPROVED
The claim "The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood" is disproved by three independent peer-reviewed sources (B1, B2, B3), all fully verified by live page fetch. Adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) — the generation of new neurons in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus — has been confirmed in neurologically healthy adult humans using immunohistochemistry with controlled postmortem delay, BrdU labeling, and radiocarbon birthdating. The phenomenon persists from middle age into the 9th–10th decades of life.
The strongest counter-evidence (Sorrells 2018) is credibly explained as a tissue fixation artifact, and is explicitly rejected by the 18-author consensus review (B2). No citation in this proof is from a low-credibility source (all are tier 5 / government domain via PubMed Central and PubMed).
audit trail
All 3 citations verified.
Original audit log
B1 — Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019 (PubMed) - Status: verified - Method: full_quote - Fetch mode: live - coverage_pct: null (full_quote match — no fragmentation needed)
B2 — Kempermann et al. 2018 (PMC) - Status: verified - Method: full_quote - Fetch mode: live - coverage_pct: null (full_quote match)
B3 — Llorens-Martín et al. 2021 (PMC) - Status: verified - Method: full_quote - Fetch mode: live - coverage_pct: null (full_quote match)
All three citations were fetched live and verified by full quote match. No Wayback Machine fallback was needed.
Source: proof.py JSON summary
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| subject | The human brain |
| property | generates new neurons in adulthood (adult hippocampal neurogenesis, AHN) |
| operator | >= |
| threshold | 3 |
| proof_direction | disprove |
| operator_note | The claim asserts that adult neurogenesis does NOT occur (zero occurrence). We DISPROVE it by counting independent peer-reviewed sources that directly confirm adult neurogenesis in humans. proof_direction='disprove': n_confirming counts sources REJECTING the claim (i.e., confirming AHN exists). If n_confirming >= 3 (threshold), claim_holds=True means the disproof succeeds => verdict=DISPROVED. The threshold of 3 independent sources was chosen as a conservative minimum for scientific consensus. |
Source: proof.py JSON summary
Natural language claim: "The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood."
Subject: The human brain Property: Generates new neurons in adulthood (adult hippocampal neurogenesis, AHN)
Formal interpretation: The claim asserts that adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) does not occur (zero occurrence). To disprove it, we count independent peer-reviewed sources that directly confirm AHN in humans. If n_confirming ≥ 3 (threshold), the disproof succeeds.
Operator note: This is a disproof proof (proof_direction = "disprove"). claim_holds = True means the disproof holds — i.e., the claim is FALSE. The threshold of 3 independent sources was chosen as a conservative minimum for scientific consensus. Requiring only 1 source would risk being overturned by a single replication failure; 3 is a well-established minimum for scientific credibility across independent studies.
| Fact ID | Domain | Type | Tier | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | nih.gov | government | 5 | PubMed abstract of peer-reviewed Nature Medicine paper (PMID 30911133) |
| B2 | nih.gov | government | 5 | PubMed Central full text of peer-reviewed Cell Stem Cell article (PMC6035081) |
| B3 | nih.gov | government | 5 | PubMed Central full text of peer-reviewed Journal of Neuroscience article (PMC8018741) |
All sources are tier 5 (government domain). The underlying journals — Nature Medicine, Cell Stem Cell, and Journal of Neuroscience — are peer-reviewed publications with high impact factors in the neuroscience field.
Source: proof.py JSON summary
[✓] moreno_jimenez_2019: Full quote verified for moreno_jimenez_2019 (source: tier 5/government)
[✓] kempermann_2018: Full quote verified for kempermann_2018 (source: tier 5/government)
[✓] llorens_martin_2021: Full quote verified for llorens_martin_2021 (source: tier 5/government)
[✓] B1: extracted immature neurons from quote
[✓] B2: extracted adult-generated neurons from quote
[✓] B3: extracted adult neurogenesis from quote
compare: 3 >= 3 = True
Source: proof.py inline output (execution trace)
| Description | n_sources | n_confirming | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| All three sources confirm adult neurogenesis in humans | 3 | 3 | True |
The three sources are independently authored research groups across different institutions: - B1: Moreno-Jiménez group (Spain) — primary immunohistochemical data, controlled PMD - B2: International consortium of 18 neuroscientists across multiple countries — consensus review - B3: Llorens-Martín group (Spain) — primary immunohistochemical data, aging focus
All three converge on the same conclusion using different angles of evidence. No shared-variable dependency exists between them.
Source: proof.py JSON summary
Check 1: Is there credible peer-reviewed evidence that adult human neurogenesis does NOT occur? - Verification performed: Searched 'Sorrells 2018 adult neurogenesis humans no evidence'. Found: Sorrells et al. 2018 (Nature 555:377-381) concluded 'neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus does not continue, or is extremely rare, in adult humans' based on 17 post-mortem controls (18-77 years) and 12 epilepsy surgical resections. This is the strongest counter-evidence in the literature. - Finding: The Sorrells 2018 finding is attributed by the field to a methodological artifact: postmortem delay (PMD). DCX (doublecortin), the key marker for immature neurons, degrades rapidly after death. Sorrells samples had PMDs up to 48 hours; Boldrini et al. 2018 (Cell Stem Cell) used PMDs ≤26 hours and found persistent neurogenesis. Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019 used tightly controlled PMDs (<4 hours) and found thousands of immature neurons per mm². The 18-author Kempermann et al. 2018 consensus review explicitly addressed the Sorrells controversy and concluded adult neurogenesis persists. - breaks_proof: False
Check 2: Is adult neurogenesis confirmed only in rodents, not specifically in humans? - Verification performed: Searched 'adult neurogenesis absent humans but present rodents species-specific'. Reviewed: Eriksson et al. 1998 (Nature Medicine) — first human study using BrdU incorporation in post-mortem cancer patients, confirmed new neurons in adult human dentate gyrus. Spalding et al. 2013 (Cell) — used radiocarbon (14C) retrospective birthdating, confirmed new neurons in adult human hippocampus independently of any immunohistochemical markers. - Finding: Human-specific studies using three independent methodologies — BrdU labeling (Eriksson 1998), 14C retrospective birthdating (Spalding 2013), and controlled-PMD immunohistochemistry (Moreno-Jiménez 2019, Llorens-Martín 2021) — all confirm adult neurogenesis in humans. No species-specific exclusion argument is credible. - breaks_proof: False
Check 3: Could 'adulthood' exclude the ages studied? - Verification performed: Searched 'adult neurogenesis human age range decline decades'. Reviewed Moreno-Jiménez 2019 subject ages: 43–87 years. Reviewed Llorens-Martín 2021 which states persistence 'until the 10th decade of human life'. Boldrini et al. 2018 (Cell Stem Cell) found neurogenesis in subjects up to age 79. - Finding: Neurogenesis is confirmed in subjects aged 43–87 (Moreno-Jiménez 2019) and up to the 10th decade (Llorens-Martín 2021). Even under any reasonable definition of 'adulthood' (post-18, post-25, etc.), neurogenesis persists. This adversarial challenge fails. - breaks_proof: False
Source: proof.py JSON summary
| Rule | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1 | Every empirical value parsed from quote text, not hand-typed | PASS — verify_extraction() used for all three B-facts; no hand-typed values |
| Rule 2 | Every citation URL fetched and quote checked | PASS — verify_all_citations() called; all three verified by live fetch, full_quote method |
| Rule 3 | System time used for date-dependent logic | N/A — no date computations in this proof |
| Rule 4 | Claim interpretation explicit with operator rationale | PASS — CLAIM_FORMAL with operator_note and proof_direction present |
| Rule 5 | Adversarial checks searched for independent counter-evidence | PASS — three adversarial checks, including the primary counter-study (Sorrells 2018) |
| Rule 6 | Cross-checks used independently sourced inputs | PASS — three independent research groups, different methodologies |
| Rule 7 | Constants and formulas imported from computations.py, not hand-coded | PASS — compare() from scripts/computations.py; no inline formulas |
| validate_proof.py | Static analysis result | PASS (13/14 checks, 1 warning resolved before run — missing else branch added) |
Source: author analysis
| Fact ID | Extracted Value | Found in Quote | Quote Snippet |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | "immature neurons" (keyword confirmed) | True | "we identified thousands of immature neurons in the DG of neurologically healthy " |
| B2 | "adult-generated neurons" (keyword confirmed) | True | "there is currently no reason to abandon the idea that adult-generated neurons ma" |
| B3 | "adult neurogenesis" (keyword confirmed) | True | "adult neurogenesis is a robust phenomenon that occurs in the human hippocampus d" |
Extraction method: verify_extraction(keyword, quote, fact_id) from scripts/smart_extract.py. Checks that the keyword substring appears in the quote string using Unicode-normalized matching. No custom regex was needed — all keywords are simple ASCII substrings present verbatim in the quotes.
Source: proof.py JSON summary; extraction method — author analysis
Cite this proof
Proof Engine. (2026). Claim Verification: “The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood.” — Disproved. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19455557
Proof Engine. "Claim Verification: “The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood.” — Disproved." 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19455557.
@misc{proofengine_the_human_brain_does_not_generate_new_neurons_in_a,
title = {Claim Verification: “The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood.” — Disproved},
author = {{Proof Engine}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://proofengine.info/proofs/the-human-brain-does-not-generate-new-neurons-in-a/},
note = {Verdict: DISPROVED. Generated by proof-engine v0.10.0},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.19455557},
}
TY - DATA TI - Claim Verification: “The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood.” — Disproved AU - Proof Engine PY - 2026 UR - https://proofengine.info/proofs/the-human-brain-does-not-generate-new-neurons-in-a/ N1 - Verdict: DISPROVED. Generated by proof-engine v0.10.0 DO - 10.5281/zenodo.19455557 ER -
View proof source
This is the exact proof.py that was deposited to Zenodo and runs when you re-execute via Binder. Every fact in the verdict above traces to code below.
"""
Proof: The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood.
Generated: 2026-03-27
PROOF DIRECTION: DISPROVE
We prove the claim is FALSE by demonstrating that the human brain DOES generate
new neurons in adulthood. This is established through three independent peer-reviewed
sources confirming adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) in humans.
The adversarial check addresses the strongest counter-evidence: Sorrells et al. 2018
(Nature), which found neurogenesis undetectable in adult humans, and explains why the
scientific consensus has not adopted that finding as definitive.
"""
import json
from datetime import date
import os
import sys
PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT = os.environ.get("PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT")
if not PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT:
_d = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
while _d != os.path.dirname(_d):
if os.path.isdir(os.path.join(_d, "proof-engine", "skills", "proof-engine", "scripts")):
PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT = os.path.join(_d, "proof-engine", "skills", "proof-engine")
break
_d = os.path.dirname(_d)
if not PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT:
raise RuntimeError("PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT not set and skill dir not found via walk-up from proof.py")
sys.path.insert(0, PROOF_ENGINE_ROOT)
from scripts.smart_extract import verify_extraction
from scripts.verify_citations import verify_all_citations, build_citation_detail
from scripts.computations import compare
# 1. CLAIM INTERPRETATION (Rule 4)
CLAIM_NATURAL = "The human brain does not generate new neurons in adulthood."
CLAIM_FORMAL = {
"subject": "The human brain",
"property": "generates new neurons in adulthood (adult hippocampal neurogenesis, AHN)",
"operator": ">=",
"operator_note": (
"The claim asserts that adult neurogenesis does NOT occur (zero occurrence). "
"We DISPROVE it by counting independent peer-reviewed sources that directly confirm "
"adult neurogenesis in humans. proof_direction='disprove': n_confirming counts sources "
"REJECTING the claim (i.e., confirming AHN exists). "
"If n_confirming >= 3 (threshold), claim_holds=True means the disproof succeeds => verdict=DISPROVED. "
"The threshold of 3 independent sources was chosen as a conservative minimum for scientific consensus."
),
"threshold": 3,
"proof_direction": "disprove",
}
# 2. FACT REGISTRY
FACT_REGISTRY = {
"B1": {
"key": "moreno_jimenez_2019",
"label": (
"Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019, Nature Medicine — primary research article: "
"identified thousands of immature neurons in the dentate gyrus of healthy humans up to the 9th decade"
),
},
"B2": {
"key": "kempermann_2018",
"label": (
"Kempermann et al. 2018, Cell Stem Cell — 18-author consensus review: "
"no reason to abandon the idea that adult-generated neurons contribute across the human life span"
),
},
"B3": {
"key": "llorens_martin_2021",
"label": (
"Llorens-Martín et al. 2021, Journal of Neuroscience — primary research article: "
"demonstrates AHN is a robust phenomenon in the human hippocampus during physiological and pathologic aging"
),
},
"A1": {
"label": "Count of independent sources confirming adult neurogenesis in humans (rejecting the claim)",
"method": None,
"result": None,
},
}
# 3. EMPIRICAL FACTS
# Sources that REJECT the claim (confirm the brain DOES generate new neurons in adulthood).
# Adversarial sources that SUPPORT the claim go in adversarial_checks below, not here.
empirical_facts = {
"moreno_jimenez_2019": {
"quote": (
"we identified thousands of immature neurons in the DG of neurologically healthy "
"human subjects up to the ninth decade of life"
),
"url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30911133/",
"source_name": "Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019, Nature Medicine (PubMed abstract)",
},
"kempermann_2018": {
"quote": (
"there is currently no reason to abandon the idea that adult-generated neurons "
"make important functional contributions to neural plasticity and cognition "
"across the human life span"
),
"url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6035081/",
"source_name": "Kempermann et al. 2018, Cell Stem Cell (PMC)",
},
"llorens_martin_2021": {
"quote": (
"adult neurogenesis is a robust phenomenon that occurs in the human hippocampus "
"during physiological and pathologic aging"
),
"url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018741/",
"source_name": "Llorens-Martín et al. 2021, Journal of Neuroscience (PMC)",
},
}
# 4. CITATION VERIFICATION (Rule 2)
citation_results = verify_all_citations(empirical_facts, wayback_fallback=True)
# 5. KEYWORD EXTRACTION (Rule 1)
# verify_extraction checks that a key term appears in the quote string itself.
# For disproof proofs, keywords confirm the source REJECTS the claim.
confirmations = []
confirmations.append(
verify_extraction("immature neurons", empirical_facts["moreno_jimenez_2019"]["quote"], "B1")
)
confirmations.append(
verify_extraction("adult-generated neurons", empirical_facts["kempermann_2018"]["quote"], "B2")
)
confirmations.append(
verify_extraction("adult neurogenesis", empirical_facts["llorens_martin_2021"]["quote"], "B3")
)
# 6. SOURCE COUNT
n_confirming = sum(1 for c in confirmations if c)
# 7. CLAIM EVALUATION — use compare(), never hardcode claim_holds
# proof_direction='disprove': n_confirming = sources REJECTING the claim
# n_confirming >= 3 => claim_holds = True => verdict = DISPROVED (claim is false)
claim_holds = compare(n_confirming, CLAIM_FORMAL["operator"], CLAIM_FORMAL["threshold"])
# 8. ADVERSARIAL CHECKS (Rule 5)
# For a disproof: search for sources SUPPORTING the claim (i.e., denying adult neurogenesis).
# breaks_proof=True if a credible supporting source was found that cannot be dismissed.
adversarial_checks = [
{
"question": (
"Is there credible peer-reviewed evidence that adult human neurogenesis does NOT occur? "
"(Sources supporting the claim.)"
),
"verification_performed": (
"Searched: 'Sorrells 2018 adult neurogenesis humans no evidence'. "
"Found: Sorrells et al. 2018 (Nature 555:377-381) concluded 'neurogenesis in the dentate "
"gyrus does not continue, or is extremely rare, in adult humans' based on 17 post-mortem "
"controls (18-77 years) and 12 epilepsy surgical resections. "
"This is the strongest counter-evidence in the literature."
),
"finding": (
"The Sorrells 2018 finding is attributed by the field to a methodological artifact: "
"postmortem delay (PMD). DCX (doublecortin), the key marker for immature neurons, "
"degrades rapidly after death. Sorrells samples had PMDs up to 48 hours; Boldrini et al. "
"2018 (Cell Stem Cell) used PMDs ≤26 hours and found persistent neurogenesis. "
"Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2019 used tightly controlled PMDs (<4 hours) and found thousands "
"of immature neurons per mm². The 18-author Kempermann et al. 2018 consensus review "
"explicitly addressed the Sorrells controversy and concluded adult neurogenesis persists. "
"Sorrells 2018 does not break the proof: its negative result reflects tissue fixation "
"problems, not the absence of adult neurogenesis."
),
"breaks_proof": False,
},
{
"question": (
"Is adult neurogenesis confirmed only in rodents, not specifically in humans? "
"(Species-specificity challenge.)"
),
"verification_performed": (
"Searched: 'adult neurogenesis absent humans but present rodents species-specific'. "
"Reviewed: Eriksson et al. 1998 (Nature Medicine) — first human study using BrdU "
"incorporation in post-mortem cancer patients, confirmed new neurons in adult human "
"dentate gyrus. Spalding et al. 2013 (Cell) — used radiocarbon (14C) retrospective "
"birthdating, confirmed new neurons in adult human hippocampus independently of any "
"immunohistochemical markers."
),
"finding": (
"Human-specific studies using three independent methodologies — BrdU labeling (Eriksson 1998), "
"14C retrospective birthdating (Spalding 2013), and controlled-PMD immunohistochemistry "
"(Moreno-Jiménez 2019, Llorens-Martín 2021) — all confirm adult neurogenesis in humans. "
"No species-specific exclusion argument is credible."
),
"breaks_proof": False,
},
{
"question": (
"Could 'adulthood' be interpreted such that neurogenesis tapers off before "
"conventional adult ages (e.g., only persisting into early 20s)?"
),
"verification_performed": (
"Searched: 'adult neurogenesis human age range decline decades'. "
"Reviewed Moreno-Jiménez 2019 subject ages: 43–87 years. "
"Reviewed Llorens-Martín 2021 which states persistence 'until the 10th decade of human life'. "
"Boldrini et al. 2018 (Cell Stem Cell) found neurogenesis in subjects up to age 79."
),
"finding": (
"Neurogenesis is confirmed in subjects aged 43–87 (Moreno-Jiménez 2019) and up to "
"the 10th decade (Llorens-Martín 2021). Even under any reasonable definition of "
"'adulthood' (post-18, post-25, etc.), neurogenesis persists. "
"This adversarial challenge fails."
),
"breaks_proof": False,
},
]
# 9. VERDICT AND STRUCTURED OUTPUT
if __name__ == "__main__":
any_unverified = any(
cr["status"] != "verified" for cr in citation_results.values()
)
is_disproof = CLAIM_FORMAL.get("proof_direction") == "disprove"
any_breaks = any(ac.get("breaks_proof") for ac in adversarial_checks)
if any_breaks:
verdict = "UNDETERMINED"
elif claim_holds and not any_unverified:
verdict = "DISPROVED" if is_disproof else "PROVED"
elif claim_holds and any_unverified:
verdict = (
"DISPROVED (with unverified citations)"
if is_disproof
else "PROVED (with unverified citations)"
)
else:
verdict = "UNDETERMINED"
FACT_REGISTRY["A1"]["method"] = f"sum(confirmations) = {n_confirming}"
FACT_REGISTRY["A1"]["result"] = str(n_confirming)
citation_detail = build_citation_detail(FACT_REGISTRY, citation_results, empirical_facts)
extractions = {
f"B{i+1}": {
"value": "keyword confirmed" if c else "keyword not found",
"value_in_quote": c,
"quote_snippet": list(empirical_facts.values())[i]["quote"][:80],
}
for i, c in enumerate(confirmations)
}
summary = {
"fact_registry": {
fid: {k: v for k, v in info.items()}
for fid, info in FACT_REGISTRY.items()
},
"claim_formal": CLAIM_FORMAL,
"claim_natural": CLAIM_NATURAL,
"citations": citation_detail,
"extractions": extractions,
"cross_checks": [
{
"description": "Independent source agreement: all three sources confirm adult neurogenesis in humans",
"n_sources": len(confirmations),
"n_confirming": n_confirming,
"agreement": n_confirming == len(confirmations),
}
],
"adversarial_checks": adversarial_checks,
"verdict": verdict,
"key_results": {
"n_confirming": n_confirming,
"threshold": CLAIM_FORMAL["threshold"],
"operator": CLAIM_FORMAL["operator"],
"claim_holds": claim_holds,
"proof_direction": CLAIM_FORMAL["proof_direction"],
},
"generator": {
"name": "proof-engine",
"version": "0.10.0",
"repo": "https://github.com/yaniv-golan/proof-engine",
"generated_at": date.today().isoformat(),
},
}
print("\n=== PROOF SUMMARY (JSON) ===")
print(json.dumps(summary, indent=2, default=str))
Re-execute this proof
The verdict above is cached from when this proof was minted. To re-run the exact
proof.py shown in "View proof source" and see the verdict recomputed live,
launch it in your browser — no install required.
Re-execute the exact bytes deposited at Zenodo.
Re-execute in Binder runs in your browser · ~60s · no installFirst run takes longer while Binder builds the container image; subsequent runs are cached.
machine-readable formats
Downloads & raw data
found this useful? ★ star on github