Spontaneous rhythmic field potentials of isolated mouse hippocampal–subicular–entorhinal cortices <i>in vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rodent hippocampal circuit is capable of exhibiting in vitro spontaneous rhythmic field potentials (SRFPs) of 1-4 Hz that originate from the CA3 area and spread to the CA1 area. These SRFPs are largely correlated with GABA-A IPSPs in pyramidal neurons and repetitive discharges in inhibitory interneurons. As such, their generation is thought to result from cooperative network activities involving both pyramidal neurons and GABAergic interneurons. Considering that the hippocampus, subiculum and entorhinal cortex function as an integrated system crucial for memory and cognition, it is of interest to know whether similar SRFPs occur in hippocampal output structures (that is, the subiculum and entorhinal cortex), and if so, to understand the cellular basis of these subicular and entorhinal SRFPs as well as their temporal relation to hippocampal SRFPs. We explored these issues in the present study using thick hippocampal-subicular-entorhinal cortical slices prepared from adult mice. SRFPs were found to spread from the CA1 area to the subicular and entorhinal cortical areas. Subicular and entorhinal cortical SRFPs were correlated with mixed IPSPs/EPSPs in local pyramidal neurons, and their generation was dependent upon the activities of GABA-A and AMPA glutamate receptors. In addition, the isolated subicular circuit could elicit SRFPs independent of CA3 inputs. We hypothesize that the SRFPs represent a basal oscillatory activity of the hippocampal-subicular-entorhinal cortices and that the subiculum functions as both a relay and an amplifier, spreading the SRFPs from the hippocampus to the entorhinal cortex.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".