MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporary Versus Permanent Synaptic Loss from Repeated Noise Exposure in Guinea Pigs and C57 Mice

2020· article· en· W3008425781 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhen Zhang, Liqiang Fan, Yazhi Xing, Jiping Wang, Steven J. Aiken, Zhengnong Chen, Jian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNoise-induced hearing lossGuinea pigNeurotransmissionHearing lossNoise exposureNoise (video)ElectrophysiologyAfferentBiologyAudiologyNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single brief noise exposure can cause a significant loss of cochlear afferent synapses without causing permanent threshold shift. Previously we reported that the initial synaptic loss is partially reversible in Guinea pigs, indicating that synaptic loss can be categorized as either temporary or permanent. Since synaptic loss is biased to innervating auditory nerve fibers (ANFs) with low spontaneous spike rates (SSR), which are critical to the coding of in-background noise, coding-in-noise deficits (CIND) have been predicted to result from noise-induced synaptic damage. However, recent study of the noise masking of amplitude-modulation (AM) evoked compound action potentials (CAP) tailed to find evidence for such deficits in either mice or Guinea pigs. The present study sought to determine the effects of repeated noise exposure on temporary and permanent synaptic loss in Guinea pigs and C57 mice, whether such effects were additive, and whether repeated noise exposure induced CIND in Guinea pigs. The results show that the second noise exposure caused much less temporary synaptic loss and no additional permanent loss in Guinea pigs; however, an additional permanent loss was seen after the second noise was in the mice, although it was not significant. In Guinea pigs, the observed increased masking of the AM CAP provides evidence for CIND after repeated noise exposure.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscienceSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207