MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Plasticity of GABA<sub>B</sub>Receptor-Mediated Heterosynaptic Interactions at Mossy Fibers After Status Epilepticus

2003· article· en· W2157017305 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Chandler, Alessandra P. Princivalle, Ruth Fabian‐Fine, Norman G. Bowery, Dimitri M. Kullmann, Matthew C. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsNeuroscienceStatus epilepticusEpilepsyPlasticityGABAB receptorNeuroplasticityChemistryGABAA receptorPsychologyReceptorBiologyPhysicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several neurotransmitters, including GABA acting at presynaptic GABA(B) receptors, modulate glutamate release at synapses between hippocampal mossy fibers and CA3 pyramidal neurons. This phenomenon gates excitation of the hippocampus and may therefore prevent limbic seizure propagation. Here we report that status epilepticus, triggered by either perforant path stimulation or pilocarpine administration, was followed 24 hr later by a loss of GABA(B) receptor-mediated heterosynaptic depression among populations of mossy fibers. This was accompanied by a decrease in the sensitivity of mossy fiber transmission to the exogenous GABA(B) receptor agonist baclofen. Autoradiography revealed a reduction in GABA(B) receptor binding in the stratum lucidum after status epilepticus. Failure of GABA(B) receptor-mediated modulation of mossy fiber transmission at mossy fibers may contribute to the development of spontaneous seizures after status epilepticus.

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations66
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207