Canadian Association of Neuroscience Review: Axonal Regeneration in the Peripheral and Central Nervous Systems – Current Issues and Advances
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injured nerves regenerate their axons in the peripheral (PNS) but not the central nervous system (CNS). The contrasting capacities have been attributed to the growth permissive Schwann cells in the PNS and the growth inhibitory environment of the oligodendrocytes in the CNS. In the current review, we first contrast the robust regenerative response of injured PNS neurons with the weak response of the CNS neurons, and the capacity of Schwann cells and not the oligodendrocytes to support axonal regeneration. We then consider the factors that limit axonal regeneration in both the PNS and CNS. Limiting factors in the PNS include slow regeneration of axons across the injury site, progressive decline in the regenerative capacity of axotomized neurons (chronic axotomy) and progressive failure of denervated Schwann cells to support axonal regeneration (chronic denervation). In the CNS on the other hand, it is the poor regenerative response of neurons, the inhibitory proteins that are expressed by oligodendrocytes and act via a common receptor on CNS neurons, and the formation of the glial scar that prevent axonal regeneration in the CNS. Strategies to overcome these limitations in the PNS are considered in detail and contrasted with strategies in the CNS.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it