Repeated mild traumatic brain injury in the juvenile brain: Investigations on synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) occurs when an impulsive force is transmitted to the head and affects the brain. Up to 75% of all brain injuries are classified as “mild” TBI (mTBI; also known as concussion). There is growing evidence that during a life time repeated mTBI (rmTBI) can produce cumulative structural damage and long‐term changes in behaviour. The juvenile brain is in a period of robust synaptic reorganization and myelination, making this a particularly vulnerable time to incur either mTBI or rmTBI. Although most children recover from mTBI incidents, a significant proportion experience learning and memory impairments after rmTBI. Memory formation is closely dependent on the capacity of the brain to regulate long‐lasting changes in neuronal communication (synaptic plasticity) with the hippocampus being an essential structure for this process. Therefore, we hypothesize that rmTBI causes learning and memory deficits through its effects on hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Using the Awake Closed‐Head Injury (ACHI) model we examined how male and female Long‐Evans rats (25–28 days of age) responded after 8 episodes of ACHI over a four day period in. Animals were assessed for changes in their state of consciousness and sensorimotor abilities immediately following each ACHI, allowing us to examine the acute effects of each injury. Synaptic plasticity was assessed using in vitro electrophysiology either one day or seven days post‐ACHI. Our results show that rmTBI impacts sensorimotor abilities and impairs hippocampal synaptic plasticity in both males and female subjects. These data suggest that learning and memory deficits from rmTBI may be due to impairments in hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Support or Funding Information Support or Funding Information Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) CP funded by Fundació Universitaria Agustí Pedro Pons This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".