MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glucocorticoids Play a Fundamental Role in Protecting the Brain during Innate Immune Response

2003· article· en· W1574387337 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvain Nadeau, Serge Rivest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInnate immune systemProinflammatory cytokineTumor necrosis factor alphaLipopolysaccharideNeurodegenerationImmune systemImmunologyBiologyCytokineInflammationNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The innate immune system plays a crucial role in protecting the host against infectious microorganisms. An inappropriate control of this system may have profound consequences, because of the maintained production of specific proinflammatory molecules. Glucocorticoids are the most efficient endogenous molecules that provide negative feedback on proinflammatory signaling and gene expression. Here we show that activation of this system is not detrimental for the brain but a profound neurodegeneration takes place in animals treated with the glucocorticoid receptor inhibitor Mifepristone (RU486). This drug increased the inflammatory reaction induced by a single intracerebral bolus of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) totally abolished the neurotoxic effect of the endotoxin, and chronic infusion of the cytokine mimicked the treatment combining RU486 and LPS. The neuronal damage caused by TNF-alpha is dependent on both nitric oxide and caspase pathways. In controlling the cerebral innate immunity and microglial TNF-alpha production, glucocorticoids play a major role in protecting the brain against bacterial cell wall components.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations189
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207