MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039570051 · doi:10.1152/jn.00699.2011

A decerebrate adult mouse model for examining the sensorimotor control of locomotion

2011· article· en· W2039570051 on OpenAlexafffund
Stan T. Nakanishi, Patrick J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceSpinal cordSensory systemTreadmillNerve netBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As wild-type and genetically modified mice are progressively becoming the predominant models for studying locomotor physiology, the technical ability to record sensory and motor components from adult mice, in vivo, are expected to contribute to a better understanding of sensorimotor spinal cord networks. Here, specific technical and surgical details are presented on how to produce an adult decerebrate mouse preparation that can reliably produce sustained bouts of stepping, in vivo, in the absence of anesthetic drugs. Data are presented demonstrating the ability of this preparation to produce stepping during treadmill locomotion, adaptability in its responses to changes in the treadmill speed, and left-right alternation. Furthermore, intracellular recordings from motoneurons and interneurons in the spinal cord are presented from preparations where muscle activity was blocked. Intraaxonal recordings are also presented demonstrating that individual afferents can be recorded using this preparation. These data demonstrate that the adult decerebrate mouse is a tractable preparation for the study of sensorimotor systems.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207