MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553299053 · doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4638

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Produces Long-Lasting Deficits in Synaptic Plasticity in the Female Juvenile Hippocampus

2016· article· en· W2553299053 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily R. White, Cristina Pinar, Crystal A. Bostrom, Alicia Meconi, Brian R. Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHippocampusJuvenileTraumatic brain injuryNeuroscienceNeuroplasticitySynaptic plasticityMedicinePsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is becoming recognized as a significant concern in modern society. In particular, youth is being increasingly seen as a vulnerable time period for mTBI, as this is the final developmental period for the brain and typically involves robust synaptic reorganization and axonal myelination. Another issue that is being hotly debated is whether mTBI differentially impacts the male and female brain. To examine the impact of mTBI in the juvenile brain, we measured hippocampal synaptic plasticity using a closed-head mTBI model in male and female Long-Evans rats (25-28 days of age) at either 1 h, 1 day, 7 days, or 28 days post-injury. In female rats, the dentate gyrus (DG) region ipsilateral to the impact showed a significant reduction in long-term potentiation (LTP) at 1 day, which persisted to 28 days following injury. In male rats, the deficit in LTP was maximal in the CA1 and DG subfields ipsilateral to the impact site 7 days post-injury; however, these deficits did not persist to 28 days post-injury. These data indicate that mTBI can produce more immediate and persistent impairments in synaptic plasticity in the female brain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207