MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165484394 · doi:10.1083/jcb.202103052

The cell biology of synapse formation

2021· review· en· W3165484394 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsSynapseNeurosciencePostsynaptic potentialSynaptic plasticitySynapse formationExcitatory synapseBiologyExcitatory postsynaptic potentialReceptorInhibitory postsynaptic potentialGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a neural circuit, synapses transfer information rapidly between neurons and transform this information during transfer. The diverse computational properties of synapses are shaped by the interactions between pre- and postsynaptic neurons. How synapses are assembled to form a neural circuit, and how the specificity of synaptic connections is achieved, is largely unknown. Here, I posit that synaptic adhesion molecules (SAMs) organize synapse formation. Diverse SAMs collaborate to achieve the astounding specificity and plasticity of synapses, with each SAM contributing different facets. In orchestrating synapse assembly, SAMs likely act as signal transduction devices. Although many candidate SAMs are known, only a few SAMs appear to have a major impact on synapse formation. Thus, a limited set of collaborating SAMs likely suffices to account for synapse formation. Strikingly, several SAMs are genetically linked to neuropsychiatric disorders, suggesting that impairments in synapse assembly are instrumental in the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.293 · 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