MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126681873 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.119.3.806

Differential Fos Expression Following Aspiration, Electrolytic, or Excitotoxic Lesions of the Perirhinal Cortex in Rats.

2005· article· en· W2126681873 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa J. Glenn, Hugo Lehmann, Dave G. Mumby, Barbara Woodside

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexNeuroscienceDentate gyrusLesionHippocampusInsular cortexPrefrontal cortexDentate nucleusCortex (anatomy)NeurochemicalCentral nervous systemPsychologyTemporal lobeCognitionCerebellum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors explored the possibility that there are different neural consequences, beyond the primary site of brain damage, following perirhinal cortex (PRh) lesions made in different ways. Fos expression was used as a marker for neuronal activation and compared across the forebrains of rats that underwent the different types of surgery. Electrolytic and excitotoxic PRh lesions produced dramatic increases in Fos expression in the cortex, and excitotoxic and aspiration PRh lesions increased Fos expression in the dentate gyrus. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that different lesion methods have separable effects on neural function in regions outside the lesion site that could account for inconsistencies in the literature regarding the behavioral effects of PRh lesions on tests of spatial memory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207