MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056702743 · doi:10.1155/2011/527201

A Novel Animal Model of Hippocampal Cognitive Deficits, Slow Neurodegeneration, and Neuroregeneration

2011· article· en· W2056702743 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon C. Spanswick, Hugo Lehmann, Robert J. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeTrent UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsDentate gyrusHippocampal formationNeurogenesisNeuroscienceNeurodegenerationHippocampusCognitionGranule cellNeuroregenerationPathologicalMedicineBiologyNeuroprotectionPsychologyPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term adrenalectomy (ADX) results in an extensive and specific loss of dentate gyrus granule cells in the hippocampus of adult rats. This loss of granule cells extends over a period of weeks to months and ultimately results in cognitive deficits revealed in a number of tasks that depend on intact hippocampal function. The gradual nature of ADX-induced cell death and the ensuing deficits in cognition resemble in some important respects a variety of pathological conditions in humans. Here, we characterize behavioural and cellular processes, including adult neurogenesis, in the rat ADX model. We also provide experimental evidence for a neurogenic treatment strategy by which the lost hippocampal cells may be replaced, with the goal of functional recovery in mind.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.038 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207