MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132533498 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0131

NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation comprises a family of temporally overlapping forms of synaptic plasticity that are induced by different patterns of stimulation

2013· review· en· W2132533498 on OpenAlexaff
Pojeong Park, Arturas Volianskis, Thomas M. Sanderson, Zuner A. Bortolotto, David E. Jane, Min Zhuo, Bong‐Kiun Kaang, Graham L. Collingridge

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsLong-term potentiationNeuroscienceNMDA receptorSynaptic plasticityMetaplasticityNeuronal memory allocationBiologyNeuroplasticityReceptorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR)-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP) is extensively studied since it is believed to use the same molecular mechanisms that are required for many forms of learning and memory. Unfortunately, many controversies exist, not least the seemingly simple issue concerning the locus of expression of LTP. Here, we review our recent work and some of the extensive literature on this topic and present new data that collectively suggest that LTP can be explained, during its first few hours, by the coexistence of at least three mechanistically distinct processes that are all triggered by the synaptic activation of NMDARs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 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

Citations140
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207