MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910664424 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209429

Using computational models to predict in vivo synaptic inputs to interneuron specific 3 (IS3) cells of CA1 hippocampus that also allow their recruitment during rhythmic states

2019· article· en· W2910664424 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Guet-McCreight, Frances K. Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInterneuronHippocampusHippocampal formationBiologyIn vivo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain coding strategies are enabled by the balance of synaptic inputs that individual neurons receive as determined by the networks in which they reside. Inhibitory cell types contribute to brain function in distinct ways but recording from specific, inhibitory cell types during behaviour to determine their contributions is highly challenging. In particular, the in vivo activities of vasoactive intestinal peptide-expressing interneuron specific 3 (IS3) cells in the hippocampus that only target other inhibitory cells are unknown at present. We perform a massive, computational exploration of possible synaptic inputs to IS3 cells using multi-compartment models and optimized synaptic parameters. We find that asynchronous, in vivo-like states that are sensitive to additional theta-timed inputs (8 Hz) exist when excitatory and inhibitory synaptic conductances are approximately equally balanced and with low numbers of activated synapses receiving correlated inputs. Specifically, under these balanced conditions, the input resistance is larger with higher mean spike firing rates relative to other activated synaptic conditions investigated. Incoming theta-timed inputs result in strongly increased spectral power relative to baseline. Thus, using a generally applicable computational approach we predict the existence and features of background, balanced states in hippocampal circuits.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→