MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264009892 · doi:10.1017/s095457941500019x

Dysplasticity, metaplasticity, and schizophrenia: Implications for risk, illness, and novel interventions

2015· review· en· W2264009892 on OpenAlexaff
Matcheri S. Keshavan, Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, Jaya Padmanabhan, Jai Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)NeuroplasticityPsychologyMetaplasticityNeurosciencePsychological interventionPsychosisCognitionSchizophrenia researchPsychiatrySynaptic plasticityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we review the history of the concept of neuroplasticity as it relates to the understanding of neuropsychiatric disorders, using schizophrenia as a case in point. We briefly review the myriad meanings of the term neuroplasticity, and its neuroscientific basis. We then review the evidence for aberrant neuroplasticity and metaplasticity associated with schizophrenia as well as the risk for developing this illness, and discuss the implications of such understanding for prevention and therapeutic interventions. We argue that the failure and/or altered timing of plasticity of critical brain circuits might underlie cognitive and deficit symptoms, and may also lead to aberrant plastic reorganization in other circuits, leading to affective dysregulation and eventually psychosis. This "dysplastic" model of schizophrenia can suggest testable etiology and treatment-relevant questions for the future.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207