Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12779730

Multirhythmic bursting.

Abstract

A complex modeled bursting neuron [C. C. Canavier, J. W. Clark, and J. H. Byrne, J. Neurophysiol. 66, 2107-2124 (1991)] has been shown to possess seven coexisting limit cycle solutions at a given parameter set [Canavier et al., J. Neurophysiol 69, 2252-2259 (1993); 72, 872-882 (1994)]. These solutions are unique in that the limit cycles are concentric in the space of the slow variables. We examine the origin of these solutions using a minimal 4-variable bursting cell model. Poincare maps are constructed using a saddle-node bifurcation of a fast subsystem such as our Poincare section. This bifurcation defines a threshold between the active and silent phases of the burst cycle in the space of the slow variables. The maps identify parameter spaces with single limit cycles, multiple limit cycles, and two types of chaotic bursting. To investigate the dynamical features which underlie the unique shape of the maps, the maps are further decomposed into two submaps which describe the solution trajectories during the active and silent phases of a single burst. From these findings we postulate several necessary criteria for a bursting model to possess multiple stable concentric limit cycles. These criteria are demonstrated in a generalized 3-variable model. Finally, using a less direct numerical procedure, similar return maps are calculated for the original complex model [C. C. Canavier, J. W. Clark, and J. H. Byrne, J. Neurophysiol. 66, 2107-2124 (1991)], with the resulting mappings appearing qualitatively similar to those of our 4-variable model. These multistable concentric bursting solutions cannot occur in a bursting model with one slow variable. This type of multistability arises when a bursting system has two or more slow variables and is viewed as an essentially second-order system which receives discrete perturbations in a state-dependent manner. (c) 1998 American Institute of Physics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert J. Butera. 1998. Multirhythmic bursting.. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.166358

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗