MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020699653 · doi:10.1152/jn.00806.2004

Size Does Matter: Generation of Intrinsic Network Rhythms in Thick Mouse Hippocampal Slices

2004· article· en· W2020699653 on OpenAlexaff
Chiping Wu, Wah Ping Luk, Jesse Gillis, Frances K. Skinner, Liang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationDentate gyrusNeuroscienceRhythmHippocampusSlice preparationExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPopulation spikeBiologyPopulationChemistryElectrophysiologyPhysicsMedicineInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rodent hippocampal slices of < or = 0.5 mm thickness have been widely used as a convenient in vitro model since the 1970s. However, spontaneous population rhythmic activities do not consistently occur in this preparation due to limited network connectivity. To overcome this limitation, we develop a novel slice preparation of 1 mm thickness from adult mouse hippocampus by separating dentate gyrus from CA3/CA1 areas but preserving dentate-CA3-CA1 connectivity. While superfused in vitro at 32 or 37 degrees C, the thick slice exhibits robust spontaneous network rhythms of 1-4 Hz that originate from the CA3 area. Via assessing tissue O2, K+, pH, synaptic, and single-cell activities of superfused thick slices, we verify that these spontaneous rhythms are not a consequence of hypoxia and nonspecific experimental artifacts. We suggest that the thick slice contains a unitary circuitry sufficient to generate intrinsic hippocampal network rhythms and this preparation is suitable for exploring the fundamental properties and plasticity of a functionally defined hippocampal "lamella" in vitro.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207