MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165240954 · doi:10.1002/hipo.23364

Linking minimal and detailed models of <scp>CA1</scp> microcircuits reveals how theta rhythms emerge and their frequencies controlled

2021· article· en· W3165240954 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Pierri Chatzikalymniou, Melisa Gumus, Frances K. Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceTheta rhythmLeverage (statistics)Pyramidal cellRhythmInhibitory postsynaptic potentialLocal field potentialBiological systemComputer scienceHippocampusPhysicsBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wide variety of cell types and their biophysical complexities pose a challenge in our ability to understand oscillatory activities produced by cellular-based computational network models. This challenge stems from their high-dimensional and multiparametric natures. To overcome this, we implement a solution by linking minimal and detailed models of CA1 microcircuits that generate intrahippocampal (3-12 Hz) theta rhythms. We leverage insights from minimal models to guide explorations of more detailed models and obtain a cellular perspective of theta generation. Our findings distinguish the pyramidal cells as the theta rhythm initiators and reveal that their activity is regularized by the inhibitory cell populations, supporting a proposed hypothesis of an "inhibition-based tuning" mechanism. We find a strong correlation between input current to the pyramidal cells and the resulting local field potential theta frequency, indicating that intrinsic pyramidal cell properties underpin network frequency characteristics. This work provides a cellular-based foundation from which in vivo theta activities can be explored.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207