MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030516365 · doi:10.1037/a0020911

Motor cortex injury has different behavioral and anatomical effects in early and late adolescence.

2010· article· en· W2030516365 on OpenAlexafffund
Farshad Nemati, Bryan Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHotchkiss Brain Institute
KeywordsLesionMotor cortexNeurosciencePsychologyCortex (anatomy)DisinhibitionStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are many studies investigating the effects of early cortical injury on brain and behavioral development in laboratory animals, there are virtually no studies examining the effects of cortical injury in adolescence. The purpose of present study was to investigate the effects of unilateral motor cortex lesion received in early and late adolescence periods (Postnatal days 35 and 55 [P35, P55]) on spontaneous neural reorganization and behavioral recovery in adulthood. Rats were given unilateral motor cortex lesions at P35 or P55 and their motor behaviors were compared to sham controls in adulthood. The results of behavioral tests (skilled reaching, postural asymmetry, sunflower seed manipulation, forepaw inhibition in swimming) revealed that rats with P35 lesions had significant functional deficits whereas the rats with P55 lesions showed nearly complete recovery. Golgi-Cox analysis of pyramidal neurons showed bilateral hypertrophy of dendritic fields in the remaining sensorimotor cortex in P55 but not P35 rat brains. Thus, there appears to be an age-related pattern of morphological and behavioral changes in response to cortical injury in the early and late adolescent periods leading to better functional recovery from later injuries, much as is seen in human children.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207