Cholinergic Potentiation of Restoration of Visual Function after Optic Nerve Damage in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing cortical plasticity and brain connectivity may improve residual vision following a visual impairment. Since acetylcholine plays an important role in attention and neuronal plasticity, we explored whether potentiation of the cholinergic transmission has an effect on the visual function restoration. To this end, we evaluated for 4 weeks the effect of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil on brightness discrimination, visually evoked potentials, and visual cortex reactivity after a bilateral and partial optic nerve crush in adult rats. Donepezil administration enhanced brightness discrimination capacity after optic nerve crush compared to nontreated animals. The visually evoked activation of the primary visual cortex was not restored, as measured by evoked potentials, but the cortical neuronal activity measured by thallium autometallography was not significantly affected four weeks after the optic nerve crush. Altogether, the results suggest a role of the cholinergic system in postlesion cortical plasticity. This finding agrees with the view that restoration of visual function may involve mechanisms beyond the area of primary damage and opens a new perspective for improving visual rehabilitation in humans.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".