MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108085425 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0502710102

The striatofugal fiber system in primates: A reevaluation of its organization based on single-axon tracing studies

2005· article· en· W2108085425 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Lévesque, André Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstantia nigraGlobus pallidusBasal gangliaNeuroscienceStriatumPars compactaPars reticulataBiologyBiotinylated dextran amineAxonMedium spiny neuronAnatomyIndirect pathway of movementMidbrainPutamenAnterograde tracingCentral nervous systemDopamineDopaminergic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current model of basal ganglia rests on the idea that the striatofugal system is composed of two separate (direct and indirect) pathways originating from distinct cell populations in the striatum. The striatum itself is divided into two major compartments, the striosomes and the matrix, which differ by their neurochemical makeup and input/output connections. Here, neurons located in either striosomes or the extrastriosomal matrix in squirrel monkeys were injected with biotin dextran amine, and their labeled axons were entirely reconstructed with a camera lucida. Twenty-four of 27 reconstructed axons arborized into the three main striatal targets (external pallidum, globus pallidus, and substantia nigra pars reticulata), a finding that is at odds with the concept of a dual striatofugal system. Axons of striosomal neurons formed several columnar terminal fields in the substantia nigra pars reticulata. These data indicate that the substantia nigra pars compacta is neither the only nor the main target of striosomal neurons, a finding that calls for a reevaluation of the organization of the striatonigral projection system.

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)0.002
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations211
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207