Focused Ultrasound-Induced Neurogenesis Requires an Increase in Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial focused ultrasound technology used to transiently open the blood-brain barrier, is capable of stimulating hippocampal neurogenesis; however, it is not yet known what aspects of the treatment are necessary for enhanced neurogenesis to occur. The present study set out to determine whether the opening of blood-brain barrier, the specific pressure amplitudes of focused ultrasound, and/or the intravenous administration of microbubbles (phospholipid microspheres) are necessary for the enhancement of neurogenesis. Specifically, mice were exposed to burst (10ms, 1Hz burst repetition frequency) focused ultrasound at the frequency of 1.68MHz and with 0.39, 0.78, 1.56 and 3.0MPa pressure amplitudes. These treatments were also conducted with or without microbubbles, at 0.39 + 0.78MPa or 1.56 + 3.0MPa, respectively. Only focused ultrasound at the ~0.78 MPa pressure amplitude with microbubbles promoted hippocampal neurogenesis and was associated with an increase in blood-brain barrier permeability. These results suggest that focused ultrasound -mediated neurogenesis is dependent upon the opening of the blood-brain barrier.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".