MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167383338 · doi:10.1177/1073858403259258

Neural Synchrony, Axonal Path Lengths, and General Anesthesia: A Hypothesis

2003· review· en· W2167383338 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas V. Swindale

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceAxonPath lengthPath (computing)Inhibitory postsynaptic potentialPhysicsComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite decades of research, the mechanism by which general anesthetics produce loss of consciousness remains mysterious. A clue may be provided by the evidence that synchronous firing of cortical neurons underlies higher forms of neural processing. In order for these synchrony codes to be precise, transmission time must be independent of path length over all the connected sites between any two cortical areas. Because path lengths vary, developmental mechanisms must compensate for the resulting delay variations. Delay variations could be detected by spike-timing-dependent cues and compensation implemented by systematic changes in axon diameter, myelin thickness, or internodal distance. Anesthetics have been shown to increase conduction velocity in myelinated fibers and may therefore disrupt path-length compensation by changing velocities by different amounts in different types of axon. This simple and testable theory explains why anesthetics interfere selectively with higher cognitive functions but leave those dominated by rate-based firing relatively intact.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207