MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118832863 · doi:10.1002/ana.10372

Rapid modulation of GABA in sensorimotor cortex induced by acute deafferentation

2002· article· en· W2118832863 on OpenAlexaff
Lucien M. Levy, Ulf Ziemann, Robert Chen, Leonardo G. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialCerebral cortexSensory systemSensory cortexCentral nervous systemgamma-Aminobutyric acidNeuroplasticityTonic (physiology)Cortex (anatomy)NeurotransmitterSensorimotor cortexPsychologyChemistryMedicineInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recovery of function after acute injury to the central nervous system may be controlled by the availability of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the cerebral cortex. Acute lesions as well as manipulation of sensory inputs can lead to rapid reorganization of the cerebral cortex, occurring within minutes to hours. Reduction of cortical inhibitory tone through a decrease in the availability of GABA has been suggested as a possible mechanism; however, the degree and temporal course of the changes in brain GABA are not known. A novel method using two-dimensional J-resolved magnetic resonance spectroscopy showed that GABA levels in the human sensorimotor cortex are quickly reduced within minutes of deafferentation. This finding strongly supports the view that the release of latent corticocortical projections from tonic inhibition through decreased GABA availability is a mechanism of rapid cortical plasticity. Reduction of brain GABA can play a pivotal role in regulating the extent of rapid cortical reorganization after lesions or changes in sensory input.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations165
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207