MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968341955 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.104.027946

Regulation of N-Methyl-d-Aspartate Receptor Subunit Expression in the Fetal Guinea Pig Brain1

2004· article· en· W1968341955 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Owen, Elaine Setiawan, Antai Li, Lucy McCabe, Stephen G. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNMDA receptorBiologyEndocrinologyLong-term potentiationInternal medicineFetusHippocampusProtein subunitReceptorGestationPregnancyBiochemistryGeneGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) are critical for neuronal maturation and synaptic formation as well as for the onset of long-term potentiation, a process critical to learning and memory in postnatal life. In the current study, we demonstrated that NMDAR subunits undergo spatial, temporal, and sex-specific regulation. During development, we observed increasing NR1 and NR2A expression at the same time as levels of NR2B subunits decreased in the hippocampus and cortex in the fetal guinea pig. We have also shown that glucocorticoids can modulate fetal NMDAR subunit expression in a sex-specific fashion. This is clinically important because synthetic glucocorticoids are administered to pregnant women at risk of preterm labor. Repeated exposure to exogenous glucocorticoids caused a dose-dependent decrease in NR1 mRNA levels and increased NR2A mRNA expression in the female hippocampus at Gestational Day 62. There are significant changes in NMDAR subunit expression in late gestation. It is possible that these alter NMDA-dependent signaling at this time. Prenatal exposure to exogenous glucocorticoids modifies the trajectory of NMDAR subunit expression in females but not in males.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207