Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvement on spatial tasks is observed during a late, postnatal developmental period (PND18 - PND24). The purpose of the current work was 1) to determine whether the emergence of spatial-behavioral function was based on the ability to generate appropriate behavioral output; 2) to assess whether mossy fiber connectivity patterns preceded the emergence of spatial-behavioral function; 3) to explore functional changes in the hippocampus to determine whether activity in hippocampal networks occurred in a training-dependent or developmentally-dependent fashion. To these ends, male, Long Evans rats were trained on a spatial water or dry maze task for one day (PND16, PND18 or PND20) then euthanized. Training on these 2 tasks with opposing behavioral demands (swimming versus exploration) was hypothesized to control for behavioral topology. Only at PND20 was there evidence of spatial-behavioral function for both tasks. Examination of synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region (i.e., mossy fiber projections) revealed enhanced connectivity patterns that preceded the emergence of spatial behavior. Analysis of c-Fos labeling (functional changes) revealed developmentally-dependent increases in c-Fos positive cells in the dentate gyrus, CA3 and CA1 regions whereas training-dependent increases were noted in the CA3 and CA1 regions for the water-maze trained groups. Results suggest that changes in mossy fiber connectivity in association with enhanced hippocampal functioning precede the emergence of spatial behavior observed at PND20. The combination of neuroanatomical and behavioural results confirms the hypothesis that this time represents a sensitive period for hippocampal development and modification and the emergence of spatial/ cognitive function.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".