MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465165524 · doi:10.1186/s12915-016-0270-5

Somato-dendritic decoupling as a novel mechanism for protracted cortical maturation

2016· article· en· W2465165524 on OpenAlexafffund
Taylor Chomiak, Johanna Hung, Minh Dang Nguyen, Bin Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSinneave Family Foundation
KeywordsNeurogenesisNeuroscienceBiologyNeuroplasticityHippocampal formationEmbryonic stem cellMechanism (biology)Biological neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both human and animal data indicate that disruption of the endogenously slow maturation of temporal association cortical (TeA) networks is associated with abnormal higher order cognitive development. However, the neuronal mechanisms underlying the endogenous maturation delay of the TeA are poorly understood. RESULTS: Here we report a novel form of developmental plasticity that is present in the TeA. It was found that deep layer TeA neurons, but not hippocampal or primary visual neurons, exist in a protracted 'embryonic-like' state through a mechanism involving reduced somato-dendritic communication and a non-excitable somatic membrane. This mechanism of neural inactivity is present in intact tissue and shows a remarkable transition into an active somato-dendritically coupled state. The quantity of decoupled cells diminishes in a protracted and age-dependent manner, continuing into adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our data, we propose a model of neural plasticity through which protracted compartmentalization and decoupling in somato-dendritic signalling plays a key role in controlling how excitable neurons are incorporated into recurrent cortical networks independent of neurogenesis.

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)0.004
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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BiologySame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207