MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079174182 · doi:10.1159/000112662

Catecholamine Neurons of the Central Nervous System in Organotypic Culture

2007· article· en· W2079174182 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Hendelman, K.C. Marshall, R. Ferguson, S Carrière

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus coeruleusHorseradish peroxidaseBiologyCentral nervous systemCatecholamineGranule (geology)IntracellularAnatomyNeuroscienceCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A standardized dissection has been designed to produce explants from the locus coeruleus of the newborn mouse brain. This area, termed the peduncular region, may be explanted with or without cerebellar neurons. Organotypic cultures with peduncular cells contain a cluster of 20-50 (or more) closely-packed large neurons, characterized by intracellular refractile granules in the living state. When treated with the glyoxylic acid method, somata of the granule-containing neurons exhibited catecholamine fluorescence, and a profuse plexus of varicose fluorescent fibers permeated the explant and its outgrowth. Intracellular staining of these cells with horseradish peroxidase demonstrated bipolar and multipolar neurons (25-30 micrometers), with stout dendrites and varicose axons. Granule-containing neurons stained for acetylcholinesterase. Electron microscopically, large dense granules were seen, which appear to correspond to the granules seen in living neurons. Cultures with these cells also have a high concentration of catecholamines in the medium. It is concluded that the granule-bearing neurons of the living culture are in fact neurons of the locus coeruleus.

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)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuroscienceSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207