Thalamic projections from the whisker-sensitive regions of the spinal trigeminal complex in the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the axonal projections of whisker-sensitive cells of the spinal trigeminal subnuclei (SP5) in rat oral, interpolar, and caudal divisions (SP5o, SP5i, and SP5c, respectively). The labeling of small groups of trigeminothalamic axons with biotinylated dextran amine disclosed the following classes of axons. 1) Few SP5o cells project to the thalamus: They innervate the caudal part of the posterior group (Po) and the region intercalated between the anterior pretectal and the medial geniculate nuclei. These fibers also branch profusely in the tectum. 2) Two types of ascending fibers arise from SP5i: Type I fibers are thick and distribute to the Po and to other regions of the midbrain, i.e., the prerubral field, the deep layers of the superior colliculus, the anterior pretectal nucleus, and the ventral part of the zona incerta. Type II fibers are thin; branch sparsely in the tectum; and form small-sized, bushy arbors in the ventral posterior medial nucleus (VPM). Accordingly, a statistical analysis of the distribution of antidromic invasion latencies of 96 SP5i cells to thalamic stimulation disclosed two populations of neurons: fast-conducting cells, which invaded at a mean latency of 1.23 +/- 0. 62 msec, and slow-conducting cells, which invaded at a mean latency of 2.97 +/- 0.62 msec. 3) The rostral part of SP5c contains cells with thalamic projections similar to that of type II SP5i neurons, whereas the caudal part did not label thalamic fibers in this study. A comparison of SP5i projections and PR5 projections in the VPM revealed that the former are restricted to ventral-lateral tier of the nucleus, whereas the latter terminate principally in the upper two tiers of the VPM. These results suggest a functional compartmentation of thalamic barreloids that is defined by the topographic distribution of PR5 and type II SP5i afferents.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".