MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161002250 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2009.178905

Excitatory amino acid involvement in dendritic spine formation, maintenance and remodelling

2009· review· en· W2161002250 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Anne McKinney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Council
KeywordsDendritic spineExcitatory postsynaptic potentialAMPA receptorDendritic filopodiaNeuroscienceNMDA receptorIonotropic effectSynapseGlutamate receptorChemistryBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialReceptorHippocampal formationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the central nervous system, most excitatory synapses occur on dendritic spines, which are small protrusions from the dendritic tree. In the mature cortex and hippocampus, dendritic spines are heterogeneous in shape. It has been shown that the shapes of the spine can affect synapse stability and synaptic function. Dendritic spines are highly motile structures that can undergo actin-dependent shape changes, which occur over a time scale ranging from seconds to tens of minutes or even days. The formation, remodelling and elimination of excitatory synapses on dendritic spines represent ways of refining the microcircuitry in the brain. Here I review the current knowledge on the effects of modulation of AMPA and NMDA ionotropic glutamate receptors on dendritic spine formation, motility and remodelling.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations138
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207