MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967056760 · doi:10.5061/dryad.1vhhmgqp7

The functional organization of excitation and inhibition in the dendritic arbors of retinal direction-selective ganglion cells

2019· dataset· en· W6967056760 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibitory postsynaptic potentialExcitatory postsynaptic potentialGABAergicGiant retinal ganglion cellsRetinal wavesRetinalDendritic spikeRetinal ganglion cellCalcium imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies indicate that the precise timing and location of excitation and inhibition (E/I) within active dendritic trees can significantly impact neuronal function. How excitatory and inhibitory inputs are functionally organized at the subcellular level in intact circuits remains unclear. To address this issue, we took advantage of the retinal direction-selective ganglion cell circuit, in which directionally tuned inhibitory GABAergic input arising from starburst amacrine cells shape direction-selective dendritic responses. We combined two-photon calcium imaging with genetic, pharmacological, and single-cell ablation methods to examine local E/I. We demonstrate that when active dendritic conductances are blocked, direction selectivity emerges semi-independently within unusually small dendritic segments (<10 µm). Impressively, the direction encoded by each segment is relatively homogenous throughout the ganglion cell’s dendritic tree. Together the results demonstrate a precise subcellular functional organization of excitatory and inhibitory input, which suggests that the parallel processing scheme proposed for direction encoding could be more fine-grained than previously envisioned.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.062

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207