Distribution of contacts from vestibulospinal axons on the dendrites of splenius motoneurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current descriptions of the organization of synapses on the dendritic trees of spinal motoneurons indicate that the inputs are arranged in several patterns: some are widely distributed; some are distributed to proximal dendrites; others are distributed based on the trajectory of the dendrites. However, the principles governing the organization of synapses on spinal motoneurons remain poorly defined. Our goal was to extend the descriptions of the distribution of synapses, identified by their source, on the dendritic trees of spinal motoneurons. We combined anterograde and intracellular staining techniques in cats to determine the distribution of contacts between excitatory axons from the rostral aspect of the descending vestibular nucleus and the dendrites of motoneurons supplying a dorsal neck muscle, splenius. In five of five motoneurons, the contacts were preferentially distributed on dendrites medial to the soma. This qualitative observation was confirmed by using Monte Carlo methods. The results from this analysis showed that the distribution of contacts can be explained not by the overall distribution of the dendritic membrane area but rather by a systematic innervation of the medial regions of the dendritic trees (P < 0.02). Despite this selectivity, there was no additional bias in the distribution of contacts to proximal vs. distal dendrites. By concentrating excitatory synapses in a restricted region of the dendritic tree, the actions of vestibulospinal connections on neck motoneurons may be increased as a result of a greater probability of activating persistent inward currents on the dendrites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".