MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166102012 · doi:10.1002/syn.22217

Prefrontal neuronal morphology in kindling‐prone (FAST) and kindling‐resistant (SLOW) rats

2021· article· en· W3166102012 on OpenAlexaff
Christine J. Reinhart, Dan McIntyre, Sergio M. Pellis, Bryan Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueSynapse · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmygdalaNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexNeuroplasticityCortex (anatomy)Orbitofrontal cortexPsychologyBiologyPyramidal cellHippocampusCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epileptogenic-prone (FAST) and epileptogenic-resistant (SLOW) rat strains have become a valuable tool for investigating neural plasticity. The strains were generated by breeding the rats that required the fewest amygdala stimulations to elicit a stage-5 convulsive seizure (FAST) and rats requiring the most stimulations (SLOW). Previous studies have shown differences in behavior and amygdala physiology in the two strains. This study examined the dendritic morphology of pyramidal neurons in the brains of adult male and female rats of the two strains. The brains were stained with the Golgi-Cox method and the length and branching from layer III pyramidal cells were measured in parietal cortex (Zilles Par1), medial frontal cortex (Zilles Cg3), and orbitofrontal cortex (Zilles AID) in these two strains of rats. We observed significantly longer dendrites in Cg3 in the FAST group but longer dendrites in the SLOW group in AID and Par1. There was also a sex difference (M > F) in Par1 in both strains. These morphological differences can provide insights into the neurobiological basis of the behavioral differences and suggest that localized changes in the amygdala do not occur independently of changes in other brain regions, and especially prefrontal cortex.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynapseSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207