MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spinal plasticity following intermittent hypoxia: implications for spinal injury

2010· review· en· W1491908576 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erica A. Dale, Michael S. Hoffman, Peter M. MacFarlane, Irawan Satriotomo, M.R. Lovett-Barr, Stéphane Vinit, Gordon S. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsIntermittent hypoxiaHypoxia (environmental)Phrenic nerveNeuroplasticityRespiratory systemNeuroscienceNeurotrophic factorsMedicineBiologyAnesthesiaReceptorAnatomyChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasticity is a fundamental property of the neural system controlling breathing. One frequently studied model of respiratory plasticity is long-term facilitation of phrenic motor output (pLTF) following acute intermittent hypoxia (AIH). pLTF arises from spinal plasticity, increasing respiratory motor output through a mechanism that requires new synthesis of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, activation of its high-affinity receptor, tropomyosin-related kinase B, and extracellular-related kinase mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling in or near phrenic motor neurons. Because intermittent hypoxia induces spinal plasticity, we are exploring the potential to harness repetitive AIH as a means of inducing functional recovery in conditions causing respiratory insufficiency, such as cervical spinal injury. Because repetitive AIH induces phenotypic plasticity in respiratory motor neurons, it may restore respiratory motor function in patients with incomplete spinal injury.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.163 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations101
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207