Deep brain stimulation effects on learning, memory and glutamate and GABAA receptor subunit gene expression in kindled rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
subunit increased at 2-3 h after applying LFS. The increase in NR2A/NR2B ratio was also observed 1 week after LFS. No significant changes were observed one month after LFS administration. Field potential recordings in the hippocampal CA1 area showed that kindling-induced potentiation of the field EPSP slope returned to near baseline when measured 2-3 h after applying LFS. Therefore, it may be postulated that applying LFS in kindled animals reduced the seizure-induced learning and memory impairments, albeit time-dependently. In tandem, LFS prevented kindling-induced alterations in gene expression of the described proteins, which are potentially important for synaptic transmission and/or potentiation. Moreover, a depotentiation-like phenomenon may be a possible mechanism underlying the LFS action. subunit increased at 2–3 h after applying LFS. The increase in NR2A/NR2B ratio was also observed 1 week after LFS. No significant changes were observed one month after LFS administration. Field potential recordings in the hippocampal CA1 area showed that kindling-induced potentiation of the field EPSP slope returned to near baseline when measured 2–3 h after applying LFS. Therefore, it may be postulated that applying LFS in kindled animals reduced the seizure-induced learning and memory impairments, albeit time-dependently. In tandem, LFS prevented kindling-induced alterations in gene expression of the described proteins, which are potentially important for synaptic transmission and/or potentiation. Moreover, a depotentiation-like phenomenon may be a possible mechanism underlying the LFS 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".