MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141407348 · doi:10.3109/00207450108986501

The Ability to Smell Remains Intact, But Does Not Recover, After Olfactory Bulb Lesions

2001· article· en· W2141407348 on OpenAlexaff
Jillian H. Fecteau, Norton W. Milgram

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactory bulbLesionOlfactionOlfactory systemOlfactory perceptionPsychologyBulbNeuroscienceAudiologyMedicineCentral nervous systemBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined two unresolved issues regarding the influence of olfactory bulb lesions on the ability to smell. First, we asked whether the sense of smell remains intact or recovers after incomplete and complete removal of both olfactory bulbs and second, whether the qualitative perception of smell changes after lesion. Rats were trained to perform a four-choice olfactory discrimination task and were subsequently prepared with either medium, large, or complete bilateral olfactory bulb lesions. They were retested after a recovery period of either 6 or 22 weeks. The lesion effect depended on lesion size, and not on recovery interval. Animals with complete lesions showed no retention, and a failure to relearn, regardless of the recovery interval. Animals with incomplete lesions showed virtually perfect retention. These results, therefore, indicate first that the sense of smell remains intact following extensive olfactory bulb lesions, and that a previously acquired discrimination is permanently lost after complete olfactory bulb lesions.

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)0.005
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 score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207