MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113276791 · doi:10.1093/icb/icr022

The Role of Genetically-Defined Interneurons in Generating the Mammalian Locomotor Rhythm

2011· review· en· W2113276791 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Gosgnach

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsCentral pattern generatorNeuroscienceBiologySpinal cordCpG siteInterneuronPopulationInhibitory postsynaptic potentialRhythmGeneGeneticsGene expressionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locomotor behavior in mammals requires a complex pattern of muscle activation. Neural networks, known as central pattern generators (CPGs) and located entirely within the spinal cord, are responsible for generating much of the timing and pattern required for locomotor movements. Historically, identification of interneuronal components of the locomotor CPG in walking mammals has proven troublesome, primarily because of the difficulty in identifying functionally homogeneous groups of neurons in the spinal cord. Recently, a molecular approach has been used to identify populations of genetically similar interneurons based on the expression of transcription factors early in embryonic development. Preliminary work on these cell populations has shown that many comprise essential components of the locomotor CPG. Here I identify populations of genetically-defined interneurons that are candidate "first-order" cells of this neural network, potentially responsible for generating the locomotor rhythm in the mammalian spinal cord. Identification of the cell population(s) responsible for this key function will provide valuable insight into the structure and function of the locomotor CPG and could potentially lay the groundwork for the development of strategies aimed at regenerating motor pathways following injury to the spinal cord.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207