MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural Circuits Underlying Fly Larval Locomotion

2017· review· en· W2586994217 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroshi Kohsaka, Pierre A. Guertin, Akinao Nose

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyNeuroscienceOptogeneticsCentral pattern generatorQuadrupedalismDrosophila (subgenus)Drosophila melanogasterVertebrateBiological neural networkBipedalismConnectomicsRhythmAnatomyGeneMedicineConnectome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locomotion is a complex motor behavior that may be expressed in different ways using a variety of strategies depending upon species and pathological or environmental conditions. Quadrupedal or bipedal walking, running, swimming, flying and gliding constitute some of the locomotor modes enabling the body, in all cases, to move from one place to another. Despite these apparent differences in modes of locomotion, both vertebrate and invertebrate species share, at least in part, comparable neural control mechanisms for locomotor rhythm and pattern generation and modulation. Significant advances have been made in recent years in studies of the genetic aspects of these control systems. Findings made specifically using Drosophila (fruit fly) models and preparations have contributed to further understanding of the key role of genes in locomotion. This review focuses on some of the main findings made in larval fruit flies while briefly summarizing the basic advantages of using this powerful animal model for studying the neural locomotor system.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.787
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207