MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498166809 · doi:10.1139/y05-143

Microglia in cerebral ischemia: molecular actions and interactionsThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled Young Investigator's Forum.

2006· review· en· W1498166809 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aaron Y. Lai, Kathryn G. Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMicrogliaNeuroprotectionNeuroscienceIschemiaEffectorChemokineNeurotrophinNeurotrophic factorsBiologyInflammationMedicineCell biologyImmunologyBiochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precise role of microglia in stroke and cerebral ischemia has been the subject of debate for a number of years. Microglia are capable of synthesizing numerous soluble and membrane-bound biomolecules, some known to be neuroprotective, some neurotoxic, whereas others have less definitive bioactivities. The molecular mechanisms through which microglia activate these molecules have thus become an important area of ischemia research. Here we provide a survey review that summarizes the key actions of microglial factors in cerebral ischemia including complement proteins, chemokines, pro-inflammatory cytokines, neurotrophic factors, hormones, and proteinases, as well several important messenger molecules that play a part in how these factors respond to extracellular signals during ischemic injuries. We also provide some new perspectives on how microglial intracellular signaling may contribute to the seemingly contradictory roles of several microglial effector molecules.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations197
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207