Temporally specific proliferation events are induced in the hippocampus following acute focal injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In models of global brain injury, such as stroke or epilepsy, a large increase in neurogenesis occurs in the dentate gyrus (DG) days after the damage is induced. In contrast, more focal damage in the DG produces an increase in neurogenesis within 24 hr. To determine how cell proliferation and differentiation differs in the DG after acute injury in the DG, focal electrolytic lesions were made and mitotic activity was assessed at early (1 day) and late (5 day) time points. At the early time point, bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU)-positive cells were diffusely spread throughout the extent of the hippocampus that was ipsilateral to the lesion. No significant increase in the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the DG was observed. When BrdU was administered at the later time point, the number of BrdU+ cells in the SGZ of the DG was significantly increased. This fourfold increase in BrdU+ cells also resulted in a significant increase in neurogenesis, as measured 6 weeks following BrdU administration. This increase in neurogenesis was not observed when BrdU was administered at the early time point. These results indicate that focal injury in the DG activates two temporally specific proliferation events and that enhanced neurogenesis is observed only following a latent period after the lesion is made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".