MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033048181 · doi:10.1002/syn.10064

The cholinergic system modulates kindling and kindling‐induced mossy fiber sprouting

2002· article· en· W2033048181 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Adams, Liezanne Vaccarella, Margaret Fahnestock, Ronald J. Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueSynapse · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKindlingMossy fiber (hippocampus)CholinergicNeurosciencePilocarpineKindling modelSproutingHippocampusCholinergic FibersChemistryCholinergic neuronEpilepsyPsychologyBiologyDentate gyrus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous study, our laboratory demonstrated that the intraventricular infusion of nerve growth factor (NGF) accelerated kindling rates and enhanced mossy fiber sprouting in the absence of noticeable kindling-associated neuronal loss. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether these NGF effects were mediated via the cholinergic system. This study evaluated the effects of the cholinergic agonist pilocarpine and the cholinergic antagonist scopolamine on kindling rates and kindling-induced mossy fiber sprouting in adult rats. The results showed that pilocarpine accelerated kindling rates and enhanced kindling-induced mossy fiber sprouting in the CA3 region of the hippocampus, whereas scopolamine retarded kindling rates and blocked kindling-induced mossy fiber sprouting in the CA3 and IML regions. These findings suggest that the cholinergic system may contribute to the long-term structural and functional alterations that are characteristic of the kindled state. Moreover, these data provide support for the hypothesis that NGF infusions may mediate kindling and kindling-induced mossy fiber sprouting via regulation of the cholinergic system.

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)0.000
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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynapseSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207