MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402789955 · doi:10.1177/10738584241275583

The effect of traumatic brain injury on learning and memory: A synaptic focus

2024· review· en· W4402789955 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Eyolfson, Kirsten R. B. Suesser, Holly Henry, Itziar Bonilla‐Del Río, Pedro Grandes, Richelle Mychasiuk, Brian R. Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsNeuroscienceSynaptic plasticityTraumatic brain injuryDentate gyrusHippocampusNeuroplasticityNeurogenesisPsychologyGlutamate receptorMetaplasticityMedicineReceptorPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deficits in learning and memory are some of the most commonly reported symptoms following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). We will examine whether the neural basis of these deficits stems from alterations to bidirectional synaptic plasticity within the hippocampus. Although the CA1 subregion of the hippocampus has been a focus of TBI research, the dentate gyrus should also be given attention as it exhibits a unique ability for adult neurogenesis, a process highly susceptible to TBI-induced damage. This review examines our current understanding of how TBI results in deficits in synaptic plasticity, as well as how TBI-induced changes in endocannabinoid (eCB) systems may drive these changes. Through the synthesis and amalgamation of existing data, we propose a possible mechanism for eCB-mediated recovery in synaptic plasticity deficits. This hypothesis is based on the plausible roles of CB1 receptors in regulating inhibitory tone, influencing astrocytes and microglia, and modulating glutamate release. Dysregulation of the eCBs may be responsible for deficits in synaptic plasticity and learning following TBI. Taken together, the existing evidence indicates eCBs may contribute to TBI manifestation, pathogenesis, and recovery, but it also suggests there may be a therapeutic role for the eCB system in TBI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.350 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207