MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531428978 · doi:10.3389/fncel.2015.00277

Origins of spontaneous activity in the degenerating retina

2015· review· en· W1531428978 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Trenholm, Gautam B. Awatramani

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceRetinaRetinal wavesRetinalRetinal degenerationSensory systemBiologyNeural activityRetinal ganglion cellPsychologyIntrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory deafferentation resulting from the loss of photoreceptors during retinal degeneration (rd) is often accompanied by a paradoxical increase in spontaneous activity throughout the visual system. Oscillatory discharges are apparent in retinal ganglion cells in several rodent models of rd, indicating that spontaneous activity can originate in the retina. Understanding the biophysical mechanisms underlying spontaneous retinal activity is interesting for two main reasons. First, it could lead to strategies that reduce spontaneous retinal activity, which could improve the performance of vision restoration strategies that aim to stimulate remnant retinal circuits in blind patients. Second, studying emergent network activity could offer general insights into how sensory systems remodel upon deafferentation. Here we provide an overview of the work describing spontaneous activity in the degenerating retina, and outline the current state of knowledge regarding the cellular and biophysical properties underlying spontaneous neural activity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations93
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cellular NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207