MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590831986 · doi:10.1002/glia.22851

Endogenous neural stem cell responses to stroke and spinal cord injury

2015· review· en· W1590831986 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine‐Alexandra Grégoire, Brianna Goldenstein, Elisa M. Floriddia, Fanie Barnabé‐Heider, Karl J. L. Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueGlia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForebrainSubventricular zoneSpinal cord injuryNeural stem cellNeuroscienceBiologyStem cellSpinal cordEpendymal CellCentral nervous systemEndogenyRegeneration (biology)Stroke (engine)Cell biologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) are among the most frequent causes of central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction, affecting millions of people worldwide each year. The personal and financial costs for affected individuals, their families, and the broader communities are enormous. Although the mammalian CNS exhibits little spontaneous regeneration and self-repair, recent discoveries have revealed that subpopulations of glial cells in the adult forebrain subventricular zone and the spinal cord ependymal zone possess neural stem cell properties. These endogenous neural stem cells react to stroke and SCI by contributing a significant number of new neural cells to formation of the glial scar. These findings have raised hopes that new therapeutic strategies can be designed based on appropriate modulation of endogenous neural stem cell responses to CNS injury. Here, we review the responses of forebrain and spinal cord neural stem cells to stroke and SCI, the role of these responses in restricting injury-induced tissue loss, and the possibility of directing these responses to promote anatomical and functional repair of 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations155
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGliaSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207