MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485760942 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-576-3_29

Electrophysiology and Morris Water Maze to Assess Hippocampal Function After Experimental Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

2012· book-chapter· en· W2485760942 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Tariq, R. Loch Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer protocols handbooks/Springer protocols · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationMorris water navigation taskLong-term potentiationNeuroscienceHippocampusSubarachnoid hemorrhageSynaptic plasticityMedicineCognitionPsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a devastating disease that affects about 10 of every 100,000 people per year. Studies suggest that about 15% of patients die before admission to hospital and an additional 25% die within 1 month of admission. Survivors often have memory and cognitive deficits that persist for years after the ictus. The hippocampal formation and long-term potentiation (LTP), a form of synaptic plasticity at hippocampal synapses, has been postulated to be involved in cognitive functions, such as learning and memory. Therefore, assessing hippocampal function after SAH in animal models might promote better understanding of mechanisms underlying memory and learning impairment that develop after SAH. In mice or rats, hippocampal function can be assessed at a neuronal level using electrophysiology and at a behavioral level using Morris water maze. This chapter focuses on the history, methodology, and variations in these techniques.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.327
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer protocols handbooks/Springer protocolsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207