MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A brief history on the oscillating roles of thalamus and cortex in absence seizures

2012· review· en· W1634443637 on OpenAlexafffund
Massimo Avoli

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThalamusNeuroscienceCortex (anatomy)Cerebral cortexForebrainEpilepsyPsychologyConsciousnessSpike-and-waveCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes the findings obtained over the past 70 years on the fundamental mechanisms underlying generalized spike-wave (SW) discharges associated with absence seizures. Thalamus and cerebral cortex are the brain areas that have attracted most of the attention from both clinical and experimental researchers. However, these studies have often favored either one or the other structure in playing a major role, thus leading to conflicting interpretations. Beginning with Jasper and Penfield's topistic view of absence seizures as the result of abnormal functions in the so-called centrencephalon, we witness the naissance of a broader concept that considered both thalamus and cortex as equal players in the process of SW discharge generation. Furthermore, we discuss how recent studies have identified fine changes in cortical and thalamic excitability that may account for the expression of absence seizures in naturally occurring genetic rodent models and knockout mice. The end of this fascinating tale is presumably far from being written. However, I can confidently conclude that in the unfolding of this "novel," we have discovered several molecular, cellular, and pharmacologic mechanisms that govern forebrain excitability, and thus consciousness, during the awake state and sleep.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations166
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207