Connections of Medial Preoptic Neurons with the Median Eminence and Amygdala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An electrophysiological investigation was conducted on the connection of medial preoptic neurons with the median eminence and the basal and corticomedial amygdala in pentobarbital anesthesized male Sprague-Dawley rats. Of 411 medial preoptic neurons tested with median eminence stimuli, antidromic responses (mean latency 11.4 +/- SEM 0.4 ms) identified 177 cells as tuberoinfundibular neurons. Most were located in the periventricular area; 21 cells were in the area of the suprachiasmatic nucleus. Axon conduction velocities ranged between 0.01 and 0.9 m/s. 16 neurons displayed two distinct antidromic latencies when the median eminence stimulus was increased above threshold, indicating that their axons may branch in the region of the median eminence. Following suprathreshold stimulation, only 10% of spontaneously active neurons displayed features to suggest activation of a recurrent inhibitory pathway. In response to amygdala stimulation, 23% of tuberoinfundibular neurons displayed an orthodromic response; most (80%) responded with an increase in excitability after a latency of 21.6 +/- 2.4 ms; the remainder displayed a decrease in excitability at latencies of 20-28 ms lasting in excess of 100 ms. These data suggest an additional neural pathway whereby the amygdala can influence neuroendocrine regulation, i.e. through its actions on the excitability of medial preoptic tuberoinfundibular neurons.
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".