MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984491244 · doi:10.1007/s12576-014-0313-z

Non-noxious skin stimulation activates the nucleus basalis of Meynert and promotes NGF secretion in the parietal cortex via nicotinic ACh receptors

2014· article· en· W1984491244 on OpenAlexaff
Harumi Hotta, Nobuhiro Watanabe, Mathieu Piché, Sanae Hara, Takashi Yokawa, Sae Uchida

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiological Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersSmoking Research Foundation
KeywordsNucleus basalisSubstantia innominataBasal forebrainCholinergicMecamylamineStimulationInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryPosterior parietal cortexNeuroscienceCholinergic neuronNicotinic agonistMedicineBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of non-noxious skin stimulation on nerve growth factor (NGF) secretion in the parietal cortex were examined in anesthetized rats. Innocuous skin stimulation was delivered to the left hindlimb with a soft-hair brush. Extracellular NGF in the right parietal cortex was collected by microdialysis methods using a protein-permeable probe and was measured using an enzyme-linked immune-sorbent assay. Brushing produced a significant increase in extracellular NGF levels. This NGF response was not observed in rats pretreated with a nicotinic ACh receptor (nAChR) antagonist mecamylamine. We further examined whether brushing could activate the basal forebrain nucleus (nucleus basalis of Meynert, NBM), which is the main source of cholinergic fibers in the cerebral cortex, by means of functional MRI. The blood oxygen level-dependent signal in the right NBM was significantly higher during brushing compared to baseline. The results suggest that non-noxious skin stimulation activates NBM and promotes NGF secretion in the parietal cortex via nAChRs.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiological SciencesSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207