MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387112960 · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2023.102785

Dopamine control of downstream motor centers

2023· review· en· W4387112960 on OpenAlexafffund
Dimitri Ryczko, Réjean Dubuc

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFaculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé, Université de SherbrookeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsNeuroscienceDopaminergicSuperior colliculusDopamineBrainstemTectumMidbrainBiologyBasal gangliaDopaminergic pathwaysCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of dopamine in the control of movement is traditionally associated with ascending projections to the basal ganglia. However, more recently descending dopaminergic pathways projecting to downstream brainstem motor circuits were discovered. In lampreys, salamanders, and rodents, these include projections to the downstream Mesencephalic Locomotor Region (MLR), a brainstem region controlling locomotion. Such descending dopaminergic projections could prime brainstem networks controlling movement. Other descending dopaminergic projections have been shown to reach reticulospinal cells involved in the control of locomotion. In addition, dopamine directly modulates the activity of interneurons and motoneurons. Beyond locomotion, dopaminergic inputs modulate visuomotor transformations within the optic tectum (mammalian superior colliculus). Loss of descending dopaminergic inputs will likely contribute to pathological conditions such as in Parkinson's disease.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurobiologySame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207