MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Noise-induced damage to ribbon synapses without permanent threshold shifts in neonatal mice

2015· article· en· W973877029 on OpenAlexaff
Lijuan Shi, Xiaojing Guo, Pei‐Hong Shen, L Liu, Shan Tao, Xiaowei Li, Qiang Song, Zhonghua Yu, Shankai Yin, Jian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiral ganglionCochleaAuditory brainstem responseRibbon synapseBrainstemHearing lossDecibelNoise (video)Noise-induced hearing lossHair cellAudiologyAuditory fatigueSynapseNoise exposureBiologyMedicineNeuroscienceSynaptic vesicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, ribbon synapses to the hair cells (HCs) in the cochlea have become a novel site of interest in the investigation of noise-induced cochlear lesions in adult rodents (Kujawa and Liberman, 2009; Lin et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2012; Shi et al., 2013). Permanent noise-induced damage to this type of synapse can result in subsequent degeneration of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) in the absence of permanent changes to hearing sensitivity. To verify whether noise exposure during an early developmental period produces a similar impact on ribbon synapses, the present study examined the damaging effects of noise exposure in neonatal Kunming mice. The animals received exposure to broadband noise at 105-decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) for 2h on either postnatal day 10 (P10d) or postnatal day 14 (P14d), and then hearing function (based on the auditory brainstem response (ABR)) and cochlear morphology were evaluated during either postnatal weeks 3-4 (P4w) or postnatal weeks 7-8 (P8w). There were no significant differences in the hearing threshold between noise-exposed and control animals, which suggests that noise did not cause permanent loss of hearing sensitivity. However, noise exposure did produce a significant loss of ribbon synapses, particularly in P14d mice, which continued to increase from P4w to P8w. Additionally, a corresponding reduction in the amplitude of compound action potential (CAP) was observed in the noise-exposed groups at P4w and P8w, and the CAP latency was elongated, indicating a change in synaptic function.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscienceSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207