Optical Stimulation of Thalamic Spindle Circuitry Sustains Electroencephalogram Patterns of General Anesthesia but not Duration of Loss of Consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
receptor-targeting general anesthetics. A number of modeling studies have identified that anesthetic-induced alterations in thalamocortico-corticothalamic signaling in the same network that generates sleep spindles would be sufficient to elicit this key EEG signature of anesthetic hypnosis with general anesthetic agents. Accordingly, we hypothesize that targeted stimulation of this thalamic GABAergic circuitry into a sleep-spindle mode of activity would promote the general anesthetic effects of etomidate. We recorded EEG activity and loss-of-righting reflex in transgenic mice expressing channel rhodopsin-2 on GABAergic neurons (ChR2-VGAT, n = 8) and control, wild-type mice (C57BL/6J, n = 8). On two consecutive days mice were randomly assigned to receive spindle-rhythm stimulation via an optical probe targeting the left reticular thalamic nucleus or no stimulation. After an initial 30-minute recording, mice were administered etomidate (12 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) and recorded for 90 min with or without optical stimulation. Etomidate elicited an increase in 12-30 Hz EEG power in wild-type and ChR2-VGAT mice for 20 min following administration (p < 0.001). Optical spindle-rhythm stimulation prolonged the increase in 12-30 Hz activity in ChR2-VGAT mice only (p = 0.023). Spindle-rhythm stimulation also increased the incidence and duration of sleep spindle-like oscillations in ChR2-VGAT mice only (all p ≤ 0.001). Despite the maintained anesthetic-like changes in EEG activity, optical spindle-rhythm stimulation was not associated with changes in the time to and duration of the loss-of-righting reflex, a behavioral endpoint of etomidate-induced general anesthesia in rodents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".