MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399996080 · doi:10.1002/mus.25195

Can cross‐talk occur in human myelinated nerve fibers?

2016· article· en· W2399996080 on OpenAlexaff
Alan J. McComas

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulse (physics)HomogeneousNerve fibreAnatomyStimulationNerve conductionAction potentialElectrophysiologyNeuroscienceChemistryPhysicsMedicineBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The possibility that impulse cross-talk can occur between myelinated human nerve fibers was explored. METHODS: Instances of impulse conduction without decrement were found, and published recordings of compound action potentials of functionally homogeneous fibers were scrutinized. RESULTS: Both analytical approaches yielded results consistent with cross-talk occurring in some nerves after electrical stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: The possible ionic current paths in and out of neighboring fibers, which could be responsible for the phenomenon, have been considered in the light of seminal work on unmyelinated single axons. Muscle Nerve 54: 361-365, 2016.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207