Modeling oscillatory dynamics in brain microcircuits as a way to help uncover neurological disease mechanisms: A proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an undisputed need and requirement for theoretical and computational studies in Neuroscience today. Furthermore, it is clear that oscillatory dynamical output from brain networks is representative of various behavioural states, and it is becoming clear that one could consider these outputs as measures of normal and pathological brain states. Although mathematical modeling of oscillatory dynamics in the context of neurological disease exists, it is a highly challenging endeavour because of the many levels of organization in the nervous system. This challenge is coupled with the increasing knowledge of cellular specificity and network dysfunction that is associated with disease. Recently, whole hippocampus in vitro preparations from control animals have been shown to spontaneously express oscillatory activities. In addition, when using preparations derived from animal models of disease, these activities show particular alterations. These preparations present an opportunity to address challenges involved with using models to gain insight because of easier access to simultaneous cellular and network measurements, and pharmacological modulations. We propose that by developing and using models with direct links to experiment at multiple levels, which at least include cellular and microcircuit, a cycling can be set up and used to help us determine critical mechanisms underlying neurological disease. We illustrate our proposal using our previously developed inhibitory network models in the context of these whole hippocampus preparations and show the importance of having direct links at multiple levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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, 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".