MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412746103 · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2025.108079

The role of retinoids in memory reconsolidation and extinction following appetitive conditioning

2025· article· en· W4412746103 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Wimmer, Gaynor E. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Learning and Memory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroscienceExtinction (optical mineralogy)Memory consolidationPsychologyConditioningHippocampusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinoic acid, the active metabolite of vitamin A, is an important signaling molecule during vertebrate synaptic plasticity and learning and memory. We have shown that it also plays a role in long-term memory formation following both operant and classical conditioning in the invertebrate, Lymnaea stagnalis. Following retrieval, recent long-term memories can undergo additional processing whereby they can be updated and re-stabilized during reconsolidation, or suppressed during extinction. Here, we examined whether retinoic acid is involved in post-retrieval memory processing by utilizing appetitive classical conditioning of Lymnaea. We show that exposure to retinoid signaling inhibitors differentially disrupts memory reconsolidation, depending on the need for protein synthesis and the extent of training received. We also show that memory extinction is inhibited in the presence of both retinoid inhibitors and protein synthesis inhibitors, regardless of the extent of training. These findings suggest that retinoids play a role in the continued processing of implicit memories following retrieval.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of Learning and MemorySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207