Axonal and somatic filtering of antidromically evoked cortical excitation by simulated deep brain stimulation in rat brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antidromic cortical excitation has been implicated as a contributing mechanism for high-frequency deep brain stimulation (DBS). Here, we examined the reliability of antidromic responses of type 2 corticofugal fibres in rat over a stimulation frequency range compatible to the DBS used in humans. We activated antidromically individual layer V neurones by stimulating their two subcortical axonal branches. We found that antidromic cortical excitation is not as reliable as generally assumed. Whereas the fast conducting branches of a type 2 axon in the highly myelinated brainstem region follow high-frequency stimulation, the slower conducting fibres in the poorly myelinated thalamic region function as low-pass filters. These fibres fail to transmit consecutive antidromic spikes at the beginning of high-frequency stimulation, but are able to maintain a steady low-frequency (6-12 Hz) spike output during the stimulation. In addition, antidromic responses evoked from both branches are rarely present in cortical neurones with a more hyperpolarized membrane potential. Our data indicate that axon-mediated antidromic excitation in the cortex is strongly influenced by the myelo-architecture of the stimulation site and the excitability of individual cortical neurones.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".