MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382600270 · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-04918-8

GABA decrease is associated with degraded neural specificity in the visual cortex of glaucoma patients

2023· article· en· W4382600270 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ji Won Bang, Carlos Parra, Kevin Yu, Gadi Wollstein, Joel S. Schuman, Kevin C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNYU Grossman School of MedicineNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Eye InstituteYork UniversityBrightFocus FoundationResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsGlutamate receptorNeuroscienceVisual cortexGlaucomaGABAergicGlutamatergicFunctional magnetic resonance imagingDopaminergicPsychologyMedicineDopamineInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma is an age-related neurodegenerative disease of the visual system, affecting both the eye and the brain. Yet its underlying metabolic mechanisms and neurobehavioral relevance remain largely unclear. Here, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and functional magnetic resonance imaging, we investigated the GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in the visual cortex of glaucoma patients, as well as neural specificity, which is shaped by GABA and glutamate signals and underlies efficient sensory and cognitive functions. Our study shows that among the older adults, both GABA and glutamate levels decrease with increasing glaucoma severity regardless of age. Further, our study shows that the reduction of GABA but not glutamate predicts the neural specificity. This association is independent of the impairments on the retina structure, age, and the gray matter volume of the visual cortex. Our results suggest that glaucoma-specific decline of GABA undermines neural specificity in the visual cortex and that targeting GABA could improve the neural specificity in glaucoma.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207