Intermediate Stage of Epileptogenesis Is Not Affected by Disrupting Memory Consolidation Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy affects 50 to 70 million people worldwide and is characterized by recurring seizures that accelerate neurodegeneration; however, its mechanisms are still not well understood. It was proposed that epileptogenesis may be "hijacking" the mechanisms underlying normal memory formation, where synapses involved in seizure activity are strengthened after each seizure, similarly to the strengthening of memories during the consolidation processes. To investigate this link, we used a kindling model of temporal lobe epilepsy in mice and tested whether disrupting memory consolidation could alter epileptogenesis. Animals were kindled until stage 3 behavioral seizures on the Racine scale were reached. In subsequent sessions, rapamycin was administered within 10 min following kindling to inhibit protein synthesis essential for memory consolidation in the neurons involved in a seizure. Rapamycin reduced the freezing response to sensory stimuli preceding a seizure, suggesting that memory consolidation was disrupted; however, epileptogenesis was not affected. Additionally, we tested whether administering isoflurane, which reduces neuronal activity, could weaken seizure-associated patterns by interfering with memory reconsolidation processes. This intervention also did not reduce the intensity of seizures. Altogether, these preliminary results appear to be inconsistent with the hypothesis that epileptogenesis involves the same mechanisms as memory formation processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".