MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046575055 · doi:10.1080/00016480600740613

General anesthesia changes gap-evoked auditory responses in guinea pigs

2006· article· en· W2046575055 on OpenAlexafffund
Yanmei Feng, Jian Wang, Shankai Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oto-Laryngologica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPentobarbitalInferior colliculusAnesthesiaAnestheticGuinea pigChemistryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONCLUSION: General anesthesia induced by sodium pentobarbital reduces temporal resolution as represented by an increase in the threshold of gap-evoked auditory responses in guinea pigs. OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impact of general anesthesia by sodium pentobarbital (PB), a common anesthetic used in animal research, on gap-evoked responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The evoked potentials in response to gaps formed by bursts of broadband noise were recorded from electrodes implanted in the inferior colliculus (IC) and the auditory cortex (AC) of guinea pigs. The gap responses were compared in three conditions: unanesthetized and anesthetized with two doses of sodium pentobarbital (40 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg). RESULTS: PB increased the gap response thresholds, especially when applied at the higher dose. The threshold shift induced by PB was greater in the AC than in the IC. In addition, the higher dose of PB significantly increased the gap response latency in both IC and AC, and decreased response amplitude in IC only.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Oto-LaryngologicaSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207