MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214316503 · doi:10.5498/wjp.v11.i11.954

G-protein coupled receptors and synaptic plasticity in sleep deprivation

2021· review· en· W3214316503 on OpenAlexaff
Shweta Parmar, Ramakrishna Tadavarty, B.R. Sastry

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Psychiatry · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceSynaptic plasticityMemory consolidationSleep deprivationSleep (system call)MetaplasticityNeuroplasticityG protein-coupled receptorBiologySynaptic scalingReceptorPsychologyMedicineCircadian rhythmComputer scienceHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insufficient sleep has been correlated to many physiological and psychoneurological disorders. Over the years, our understanding of the state of sleep has transcended from an inactive period of rest to a more active state involving important cellular and molecular processes. In addition, during sleep, electrophysiological changes also occur in pathways in specific regions of the mammalian central nervous system (CNS). Activity mediated synaptic plasticity in the CNS can lead to long-term and sometimes permanent strengthening and/or weakening synaptic strength affecting neuronal network behaviour. Memory consolidation and learning that take place during sleep cycles, can be affected by changes in synaptic plasticity during sleep disturbances. G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), with their versatile structural and functional attributes, can regulate synaptic plasticity in CNS and hence, may be potentially affected in sleep deprived conditions. In this review, we aim to discuss important functional changes that can take place in the CNS during sleep and sleep deprivation and how changes in GPCRs can lead to potential problems with therapeutics with pharmacological interventions.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207