MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114349943 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-8-s2-s22

Phase response curve analysis of a morphologically realistic globus pallidus neuron model reveals a distal dendritic mechanism for synchronization

2007· article· en· W2114349943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan W. Schultheiss, Jeremy R. Edgerton, Dieter Jaeger

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceGlobus pallidusSubthalamic nucleusBasal gangliaBurstingDepolarizationPhase response curvePhysicsEntrainment (biomusicology)Stimulus (psychology)PsychologyDeep brain stimulationBiologyParkinson's diseaseCentral nervous systemMedicineRhythmDiseaseBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Phase-locked bursting and oscillations in low frequency bands between the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus (GP) are key features of the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease (PD). These dynamics may reflect susceptibility of the basal ganglia (BG) to entrainment with cortical oscillations or could also be a consequence of enhanced reciprocal STN-GP coupling under conditions of dopamine depletion. Phase response analysis is an efficient method of characterizing the tendency of single neurons to entrain to periodic input, and to predict the tendency of connected networks to synchronize. A phase response curve (PRC) describes the dependency of shifts in spike timing that result from weak inputs on the timing of inputs within the ongoing inter-spike interval (ISI). If, independent of stimulus phase, a depolarizing input causes an advance of the next spike, the PRC will be composed purely of positive values (a Type I PRC). A Type II PRC contains both positive and negative regions, indicating that a depolarizing from Sixteenth Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2007 Toronto, Canada. 7–12 July 2007

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207