MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484774428 · doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-292-6_8

Dissociated Hippocampal Cultures

2009· book-chapter· en· W2484774428 on OpenAlexafffund
Francine Nault, Paul De Koninck

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer protocols handbooks/Springer protocols · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHippocampal formationNeuroscienceBiological neural networkBiologyNeuronal circuitsEmbryonic stem cellNeuronIn vivoBiochemistryGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A popular approach to study living neurons involves the preparation of dissociated cultures. If isolated from neonatal or embryonic animals, neurons survive their removal and subsequent dissociation procedures. They grow processes on appropriate substrates, acquire mature neuronal morphology and polarity, and form functional synapses that resemble those of neurons developing in vivo. On the other hand, dissociated neurons produce neural circuits which differ from native circuits. While many protocols have been developed to grow multiple types of neurons, this chapter focuses on one major protocol: the preparation of neonatal rat hippocampal neurons. It involves several steps including the meticulous preparation of coverslips and stock solutions, dissection of the hippocampi, cell seeding, and the long-term maintenance of the cultures. While dissociated neuronal cultures are used by many and can be routinely maintained for several weeks, they deserve particular attention through daily observations and rigorous laboratory practice.

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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.024

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer protocols handbooks/Springer protocolsSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207