MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046427866 · doi:10.1159/000123255

Influence of Dorsal Hippocampus Stimulation on the Excitability of Medial Hypothalamic Neurons in the Rat

2008· article· en· W2046427866 on OpenAlexaff
C. Bouillé, Barry S. Layton, Leo P. Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research Council
KeywordsOrthodromicAmygdalaNeuroscienceHippocampal formationStimulationAntidromicExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potentialElectrophysiologyInternal medicineStimulus (psychology)EndocrinologyPsychologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracellular recordings from medial hypothalamic neurons in pentobarbital-anesthetized male Sprague-Dawley rats were evaluated during electrical stimulation in the ipsilateral and contralateral dorsal hippocampus/fimbria region. Similar short latency orthodromic (excitatory or inhibitory) responses were noted from both ipsilateral and contralateral stimulation sites indicating a bilateral projection. 14.5% of neurons responded to both stimuli, usually with a similar pattern of response. When neurons were also tested with ipsilateral basal or corticomedial amygdala stimulation, 21.5-22.8% of cells displayed orthodromic responses to both the hippocampus and the amygdala stimulus. 12.5% of medial hypothalamic tuberoinfundibular neurons also responded orthodromically to the hippocampal stimulus; a preceding stimulus to the amygdala could block this response in two of three tuberoinfundibular cells. These observations provide preliminary electrophysiological analysis of the functional connectivity of hippocampal and amygdala afferents to medial hypothalamic neurons that may underlie the influence of these extrahypothalamic regions on adenohypophyseal secretions.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207