MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062208243 · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.241

Longitudinal <i>in vivo</i> Imaging Reveals Balanced and Branch-Specific Remodeling of Mature Cortical Pyramidal Dendritic Arbors after Stroke

2009· article· en· W2062208243 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig E. Brown, Jamie D. Boyd, Timothy H. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Stroke NetworkHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSomatosensory systemNeuroplasticityStroke (engine)Dendritic spineNeuroscienceDendrite (mathematics)Cortex (anatomy)Apical dendriteIn vivoBiologyStroke recoveryCerebral cortexAnatomyHippocampal formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The manner in which fully mature peri-infarct cortical dendritic arbors remodel after stroke, and thus may possibly contribute to stroke-induced changes in cortical receptive fields, is unknown. In this study, we used longitudinal in vivo two-photon imaging to investigate the extent to which brain ischemia can trigger dendritic remodeling of pyramidal neurons in the adult mouse somatosensory cortex, and to determine the nature by which remodeling proceeds over time and space. Before the induction of stroke, dendritic arbors were relatively stable over several weeks. However, after stroke, apical dendritic arbor remodeling increased significantly (dendritic tip growth and retraction), particularly within the first 2 weeks after stroke. Despite a threefold increase in structural remodeling, the net length of arbors did not change significantly over time because dendrite extensions away from the stroke were balanced by the shortening of tips near the infarct. Therefore, fully mature cortical pyramidal neurons retain the capacity for extensive structural plasticity and remodel in a balanced and branch-specific manner.

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)0.001
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations118
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & MetabolismSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207