MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Melatonin has membrane receptor-independent hypnotic action on neurons: an hypothesis

2011· review· en· W1511353331 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Jan, Rüssel J. Reiter, Peter K. H. Wong, Martin Bax, Urs Ribary, Michael Wasdell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pineal Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelatoninSleep (system call)HypnoticNeuroscienceMelatonin receptorReceptorCircadian rhythmBiologyPineal glandNeuroscience of sleepEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineElectroencephalographyWakefulnessPharmacologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Melatonin, which is known to have sleep-promoting properties, has no morpho-physiological barriers and readily enters neurons and their subcellular compartments from both the blood and cerebrospinal fluid. It has multiple receptor-dependent and receptor-independent functions. Sleep is a neuronal function, and it can no longer be postulated that one or more anatomical structures fully control sleep. Neurons require sleep for metabolically driven restorative purposes, and as a result, the process of sleep is modulated by peripheral and central mechanisms. This is an important finding because it suggests that melatonin should have intracellular sleep-inducing properties. Based on recent evidence, it is proposed that melatonin induces sleep at the neuronal level independently of its membrane receptors. Thus, the hypnotic action of melatonin and the mechanisms involving the circadian rhythms are separate neurological functions. This is contrary to the presently accepted view.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.563
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pineal ResearchSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207