Electric Field Application<i>In Vivo</i>Regulates Neural Precursor Cell Behavior in the Adult Mammalian Forebrain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep brain stimulation (DBS), which uses electrical stimulation, is a well-established neurosurgical technique used to treat neurologic disorders. Despite its broad therapeutic use, the effects of electrical stimulation on brain cells is not fully understood. Here, we examine the effects of electrical stimulation on neural stem and progenitor cells (collectively neural precursor cells; NPCs) from the subventricular zone in the adult forebrain of C57BL/6J mice. Previous work has demonstrated that adult-derived NPCs are electro sensitive and undergo rapid and directed migration in response to application of clinically relevant electric fields (EFs). We examine NPC proliferation kinetics and their differentiation profile following EF application using in vitro and in vivo assays. In vitro direct current electrical stimulation of 250 mV/mm is sufficient to elicit a 2-fold increase in the neural stem cell pool and increases neurogenesis and oligogenesis. In vivo, asymmetric biphasic electrical stimulation similarly increases the size of the NPC pool and alters neurogenesis. These findings provide insight into the effects of electrical stimulation on NPCs and suggest its potential use as a regenerative approach to neural repair.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it