MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002496082 · doi:10.1155/2012/590725

Cortical GABAergic Interneurons in Cross-Modal Plasticity following Early Blindness

2012· review· en· W2002496082 on OpenAlexafffund
Sébastien Desgent, Maurice Ptito

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Plasticity · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSavoy FoundationCNIB
KeywordsNeuroscienceInterneuronGABAergicSensory systemNeuroplasticityBiologyVisual cortexPlasticityReceptive fieldPopulationInhibitory postsynaptic potentialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early loss of a given sensory input in mammals causes anatomical and functional modifications in the brain via a process called cross-modal plasticity. In the past four decades, several animal models have illuminated our understanding of the biological substrates involved in cross-modal plasticity. Progressively, studies are now starting to emphasise on cell-specific mechanisms that may be responsible for this intermodal sensory plasticity. Inhibitory interneurons expressing γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) play an important role in maintaining the appropriate dynamic range of cortical excitation, in critical periods of developmental plasticity, in receptive field refinement, and in treatment of sensory information reaching the cerebral cortex. The diverse interneuron population is very sensitive to sensory experience during development. GABAergic neurons are therefore well suited to act as a gate for mediating cross-modal plasticity. This paper attempts to highlight the links between early sensory deprivation, cortical GABAergic interneuron alterations, and cross-modal plasticity, discuss its implications, and further provide insights for future research in the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural PlasticitySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207