MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unconventional NMDA Receptor Signaling

2017· review· en· W2777541397 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim Doré, Ivar S. Stein, Jennifer A Brock, Pablo E. Castillo, Karen Zito, P. Jesper Sjöström

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCoincidence detection in neurobiologyNMDA receptorNeuroscienceHebbian theoryPostsynaptic potentialSIGNAL (programming language)IfenprodilNeurotransmissionReceptorChemistryBiologyComputer scienceCoincidenceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the classical view, NMDA receptors (NMDARs) are stably expressed at the postsynaptic membrane, where they act via Ca2+to signal coincidence detection in Hebbian plasticity. More recently, it has been established that NMDAR-mediated transmission can be dynamically regulated by neural activity. In addition, NMDARs have been found presynaptically, where they cannot act as conventional coincidence detectors. Unexpectedly, NMDARs have also been shown to signal metabotropically, without the need for Ca2+. This review highlights novel findings concerning these unconventional modes of NMDAR action.

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.089 · 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

Citations142
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207