ArticleNeuroinformatics2026
Application of Machine Learning Models to Identify Differences in Neural Electrophysiological Properties Across Estrous Cycle Phases.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning models (MLMs) have been used to classify neuron subtypes based upon electrophysiological attributes. What has been less explored is using MLMs to assess differences within a neuron type, especially in the context of subtle changes induced by neuromodulation such as the rodent estrous cycle. Previous research found that the estrous cycle shifts rat nucleus accumbens (NAc) medium spiny neuron (MSN) electrophysiology, including action potential (AP), passive, and miniature excitatory post-synaptic current (mEPSC) properties. This plasticity provides a model system to investigate this question. We hypothesized that MLM classification accuracy would differ when trained across these data types, reflecting the information each encodes regarding estrous phase identity. To test this hypothesis, we extracted electrophysiological features across four estrous cycle phases from a publicly available dataset, and employed this data to train MLMs to classify estrous cycle phase origin. We found: MLMs identified estrous phase origin with up to 94% accuracy (Random Forest); MLM accuracy differed by model and feature set; passive, AP and mEPSC features yielded sequential performances with feature importance analysis revealing input resistance, AP burst length, and mEPSC baseline current as most discriminative for their respective feature sets; the late proestrus phase demonstrated the most distinct electrophysiological profile. These findings demonstrate that MLMs can detect changes associated with the estrous cycle and are useful for assessing electrophysiological differences within a neuron type. They further represent a broader application of MLMs as computational tools useful for understanding the sensitivity of neural properties to the influences of neuromodulatory cycles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.