MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774104606

Modeling Electrical Activity of a Neuron: A Bond Graph Approach

2016· article· en· W2774104606 on OpenAlexaff
Mojtaba Ghasemi, Faezeh Eskandari, Bahareh Hamzehei, Ahmad Reza Arshi

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuronBiological systemBond graphArtificial neural networkBiological neuron modelProperty (philosophy)ElectrophysiologyExcitationGraphComputer scienceNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsTheoretical computer scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many neurological diseases, cell bioelectrical activity is disturbed. This disorder can be caused by changes in the number of neural cell or physical, chemical and electrical properties of cell. Neural tissue modeling can be used to characterize which cell property variation leads to change in neural tissue activity and thus the disease. For a model of neural tissue, the fundamental step is to have a model of single neuron. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to model a neuron and investigate its behavior under initial excitation. Bond graph method was used to develop the neural model based on cable theory and the numerical values resulting from cellular electrophysiology experiments. Initial excitation was applied by means of step and square current functions. Eventually, action potential made along the neuron for both initial excitations was estimated. Changing in the density of ion channels which might leads to some neuropathy was considered to study its effect on action potential alterations, and the results were compared for six different densities. This evaluation revealed that the model developed in this study has the ability to distinguish between different levels of ion channel density.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207