Refuting the challenges of the developmental shift of polarity of GABA actions: GABA more exciting than ever!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING BRAIN DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS A PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION OF INTRACELLULAR CHLORIDE ASSOCIATED WITH A SHIFT IN GABA POLARITY: GABA depolarizes and occasionally excites immature neurons, subsequently hyperpolarizing them at later stages of development. This sequence, which has been observed in a wide range of animal species, brain structures and preparations, is thought to play an important role in activity-dependent formation and modulation of functional circuits. This sequence has also been considerably reinforced recently with new data pointing to an evolutionary preserved rule. In a recent "Hypothesis and Theory Article," the excitatory action of GABA in early brain development is suggested to be "an experimental artefact" (Bregestovski and Bernard, 2012). The authors suggest that the excitatory action of GABA is due to an inadequate/insufficient energy supply in glucose-perfused slices and/or to the damage produced by the slicing procedure. However, these observations have been repeatedly contradicted by many groups and are inconsistent with a large body of evidence including the fact that the developmental shift is neither restricted to slices nor to rodents. We summarize the overwhelming evidence in support of both excitatory GABA during development, and the implications this has in developmental neurobiology.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".