MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329534657 · doi:10.1017/s0952523810000490

The light-induced reduction of horizontal cell receptive field size in the goldfish retina involves nitric oxide

2011· article· en· W2329534657 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan A. Daniels, William H. Baldridge

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceptive fieldNitric oxideRetinaBiophysicsNitric oxide synthaseChemistryNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horizontal cells of the vertebrate retina have large receptive fields as a result of extensive gap junction coupling. Increased ambient illumination reduces horizontal cell receptive field size. Using the isolated goldfish retina, we have assessed the contribution of nitric oxide to the light-dependent reduction of horizontal cell receptive field size. Horizontal cell receptive field size was assessed by comparing the responses to centered spot and annulus stimuli and from the responses to translated slit stimuli. A period of steady illumination decreased the receptive field size of horizontal cells, as did treatment with the nitric oxide donor (Z)-1-[N-(2-aminoethyl)-N-(2-ammonioethyl)amino]diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate (100 μM). Blocking the endogenous production of nitric oxide with the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, N(G)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (1 mM), decreased the light-induced reduction of horizontal cell receptive field size. These findings suggest that nitric oxide is involved in light-induced reduction of horizontal cell receptive field size.

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 score0.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207