MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018688947 · doi:10.1007/s00441-015-2168-x

Specific synaptopathies diversify brain responses and hearing disorders: you lose the gain from early life

2015· review· en· W2018688947 on OpenAlexaff
Marlies Knipper, Rama Panford-Walsh, Wibke Singer, Lukas Rüttiger, Ulrike Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueCell and Tissue Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEfferentNeuroscienceTinnitusContext (archaeology)Sensory systemCochleaPsychologyMedial forebrain bundleAuditory systemCatecholaminergicInner earDopamineBiologyAudiologyMedicineDopaminergicAfferent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before hearing onset, inner hair cell (IHC) maturation proceeds under the influence of spontaneous Ca(2+) action potentials (APs). The temporal signature of the IHC Ca(2+) AP is modified through an efferent cholinergic feedback from the medial olivocochlear bundle (MOC) and drives the IHC pre- and post-synapse phenotype towards low spontaneous (spike) rate (SR), high-threshold characteristics. With sensory experience, the IHC pre- and post-synapse phenotype matures towards the instruction of low-SR, high-threshold and of high-SR, low-threshold auditory fiber characteristics. Corticosteroid feedback together with local brain-derived nerve growth factor (BDNF) and catecholaminergic neurotransmitters (dopamine) might be essential for this developmental step. In this review, we address the question of whether the control of low-SR and high-SR fiber characteristics is linked to various degrees of vulnerability of auditory fibers in the mature system. In particular, we examine several IHC synaptopathies in the context of various hearing disorders and exemplified shortfalls before and after hearing onset.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.113 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell and Tissue ResearchSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207