MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 2 of A simple and reliable method for claustrum localization across age in mice

2024· article· en· W6958660243 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClaustrumColocalizationEntorhinal cortexCortex (anatomy)Somatosensory systemHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 2: Table S1. Individualized marker quantification and colocalization in the claustrum (CLA), primary motor cortex (MOp), and somatosensory cortex (SSC) for each mouse at different postnatal ages. Values represent mean cell count per slice. For the claustrum, the mean was calculated by averaging data across the anterior, middle, and posterior subdivisions. The first column reflects mouse age, where P(x) indicates postnatal day when tissue was collected. For each age, mice were derived from ≥ 2 litters. F female, M Male. Table S2. Quantification and one-way ANOVA analysis of marker colocalization with GFP+ cells in different claustrocortical anteroposterior subdivisions of the claustrum (CLA), following retrograde tracing from different cortical regions. ACC: anterior cingulate cortex, MOp: primary motor cortex, LEC: lateral entorhinal cortex, RSC: retrosplenial cortex, std dev: standard deviation. Mean ± std dev values represent the percentage of marker colocalization with GFP+ cells relative to total GFP+ cells. Table S3. Individualized marker quantification and colocalization with claustrum cells that express Tdtomato (TdT) for each mouse at different postnatal stages. AAVretro-CAG-TdT was injected into the anterior cingulate. The values represent mean cell count within coronal slices, averaged across the anterior, middle, and posterior claustrum for individual mice. The first column reflects mouse age, where P(x) indicates postnatal day when tissue was collected. For each age, mice were derived from ≥ 2 litters. F female, M Male. Datasets 1 and 2 were either derived from adjacent slices or different mice. Table S4. Individualized marker quantification and colocalization with claustrum cells that express cFos for each mouse in the naive and open field (OF) groups. Numbers represent mean cell count per slice, averaged across the anterior, middle, and posterior claustrum. The first column reflects mouse age, where P(x) indicates the postnatal day when tissue was collected. F female, M Male.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7900.205

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→