MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Olfactory learning in the rat pup: A model that may permit visualization of a mammalian memory trace

2004· review· en· W2013279514 on OpenAlexaff
John H. McLean, Carolyn W. Harley

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCREBNeurosciencePhosphorylationOlfactory bulbBiological neural networkMemory consolidationNeurogenesisBiologyOdorIntracellularOlfactionCentral nervous systemCell biologyTranscription factorHippocampusBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 10 years considerable insight into intracellular interactions leading to long-term memory formation have been gleaned from various neural circuits within invertebrate and vertebrate species. This review suggests that, while certain intracellular signaling pathways are commonly involved across species, it is important to analyze specific neural systems because critical differences among systems appear to exist. The olfactory bulb has been used by our group to estimate the influence of neuromodulatory systems (serotonin and norepinephrine) on intracellular processes leading to learning. We describe here how activation of noradrenergic input to mitral cells increases cAMP leading to CREB phosphorylation when paired with a conditioning stimulus, odor. CREB phosphorylation is causal in odor preference learning leading to long-term memory for the odor. However, the relationship between cAMP activation and CREB phosphorylation is not straight forward; overstimulation of cAMP pathways impedes learning and prevents CREB phosphorylation. Excessive CREB phosphorylation also interferes with learning.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.025 · 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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207