MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311482466 · doi:10.1111/cns.14059

Involvement of dopamine <scp>D<sub>2</sub></scp>‐like receptors in the antiepileptogenic effects of deep brain stimulation during kindling in rats

2022· article· en· W4311482466 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Rezaei, Samireh Ghafouri, Azam Asgari, Victoria Barkley, Yaghoub Fathollahi, Sareh Rostami, Amir Shojaei, Javad Mirnajafi‐Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute for Medical Research DevelopmentTarbiat Modares University
KeywordsKindlingPerforant pathStimulationEpileptogenesisPopulation spikeDopamineNeuroscienceBrain stimulationPopulationPsychologyPharmacologyChemistryEndocrinologyInternal medicineDentate gyrusMedicineEpilepsyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Deep brain electrical stimulation (DBS), as a potential therapy for drug resistive epileptic patients, has inhibitory action on epileptogenesis. In the present investigation, the role of dopamine D 2 ‐like receptors in the antiepileptogenic action of DBS was studied. Methods Seizures were induced in adult rats by stimulating the perforant path in a semi‐rapid kindling method. Five minutes after the last kindling stimulation, daily DBS was applied to the perforant path at the pattern of low frequency stimulation (LFS; 1 Hz; pulse duration: 0.1 ms; intensity: 50–150 μA; 4 trains of 200 pulses at 5 min intervals). Sulpiride (10 μg/1 μl, i.c.v.), a selective dopamine D 2 ‐like receptor antagonist, was administered prior to the daily LFS application. Results Kindling stimulations increased cumulative daily behavioral seizure stages, daily afterdischarge duration (dADD), and population spike amplitude (PS) in dentate gyrus following perforant path stimulation, while applying LFS decreased the kindled seizures' parameters. In addition, kindling potentiated the early (at 10–50 ms inter‐pulse interval) and late (at 150–1000 ms inter‐pulse interval) paired‐pulse inhibition and decreased the paired‐pulse facilitation (at 70–100 ms inter‐pulse interval). These effects were also inhibited by applying LFS. All inhibitory effects of LFS on kindling procedure were prevented by sulpiride administration. Conclusion These data may suggest that LFS exerts its preventive effect on kindling development, at least partly, through the receptors on which sulpiride acts which are mainly dopamine D 2 ‐like (including D 2 , D 3 , and D 4 ) receptors.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS Neuroscience & TherapeuticsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207