MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895381724 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.095

Sub-populations of Spinal V3 Interneurons Form Focal Modules of Layered Pre-motor Microcircuits

2018· article· en· W2895381724 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy W. Chopek, Filipe Nascimento, Marco Beato, Robert M. Brownstone, Ying Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDalhousie UniversityBrain Research UKWellcome TrustNova Scotia Research Innovation Trust
KeywordsNeuroscienceInterneuronMotor neuronBiologyAnatomySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Layering of neural circuits facilitates the separation of neurons with high spatial sensitivity from those that play integrative temporal roles. Although anatomical layers are readily identifiable in the brain, layering is not structurally obvious in the spinal cord. But computational studies of motor behaviors have led to the concept of layered processing in the spinal cord. It has been postulated that spinal V3 interneurons (INs) play multiple roles in locomotion, leading us to investigate whether they form layered microcircuits. Using patch-clamp recordings in combination with holographic glutamate uncaging, we demonstrate focal, layered modules, in which ventromedial V3 INs form synapses with one another and with ventrolateral V3 INs, which in turn form synapses with ipsilateral motoneurons. Motoneurons, in turn, provide recurrent excitatory, glutamatergic input to V3 INs. Thus, ventral V3 interneurons form layered microcircuits that could function to ensure well-timed, spatially specific movements.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations90
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207