MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516710951 · doi:10.7554/elife.16443

Subthalamic, not striatal, activity correlates with basal ganglia downstream activity in normal and parkinsonian monkeys

2016· article· en· W2516710951 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Deffains, Liliya Iskhakova, Shiran Katabi, Suzanne N. Haber, Zvi Israel, Hagai Bergman

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Friends of Hebrew UniversityIsrael Science FoundationEuropean Research CouncilMinistry of Aliyah and Immigrant AbsorptionRosetrees Trust
KeywordsBasal gangliaSubthalamic nucleusNeuroscienceStriatumLocal field potentialMPTPDeep brain stimulationPremovement neuronal activityParkinsonismParkinson's diseasePsychologyDopamineBiologyCentral nervous systemInternal medicineMedicineDopaminergicDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The striatum and the subthalamic nucleus (STN) constitute the input stage of the basal ganglia (BG) network and together innervate BG downstream structures using GABA and glutamate, respectively. Comparison of the neuronal activity in BG input and downstream structures reveals that subthalamic, not striatal, activity fluctuations correlate with modulations in the increase/decrease discharge balance of BG downstream neurons during temporal discounting classical condition task. After induction of parkinsonism with 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), abnormal low beta (8-15 Hz) spiking and local field potential (LFP) oscillations resonate across the BG network. Nevertheless, LFP beta oscillations entrain spiking activity of STN, striatal cholinergic interneurons and BG downstream structures, but do not entrain spiking activity of striatal projection neurons. Our results highlight the pivotal role of STN divergent projections in BG physiology and pathophysiology and may explain why STN is such an effective site for invasive treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease and other BG-related disorders.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations122
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207