MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153989273 · doi:10.1101/lm.1569309

Theta bursts in the olfactory nerve paired with β-adrenoceptor activation induce calcium elevation in mitral cells: A mechanism for odor preference learning in the neonate rat

2009· article· en· W2153989273 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning & Memory · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialLong-term potentiationNeurosciencePostsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potentialOdorStimulationOlfactory systemOlfactionChemistryInternal medicinePsychologyReceptorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Odor preference learning in the neonate rat follows pairing of odor input and noradrenergic activation of beta-adrenoceptors. Odor learning is hypothesized to be supported by enhanced mitral cell activation. Here a mechanism for enhanced mitral cell signaling is described. Theta bursts in the olfactory nerve (ON) produce long-term potentiation (LTP) of glomerular excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and of excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) in the periglomerular (PG) and external tufted (ET) cells. Theta bursts paired with beta-adrenoceptor activation significantly elevate mitral cell (MC) calcium. Juxtaglomerular inhibitory network depression by beta-adrenoceptor activation appears to increase calcium in MCs in response to theta burst stimulation.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning & MemorySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207