Pro‐regenerative properties of cytokine‐activated astrocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing view of the astrocytic response to injury is that reactive astrocytes impede the regenerative process by forming scar tissue. As the levels of many cytokines dramatically increase following CNS insult and as this increase in cytokine expression precedes the production of the glial scar, a long-standing view has been that cytokines diminish neuronal survival and regeneration by stimulating the formation of astrogliotic scar tissue. However, there is a wealth of data indicating that cytokines "activate" astrocytes, and that cytokine-stimulated astrocytes can promote the recovery of CNS function. Supporting evidence demonstrates that cytokine-activated astrocytes produce energy substrates and trophic factors for neurons and oligodendrocytes, act as free radical and excess glutamate scavengers, actively restore the blood-brain barrier, promote neovascularization, restore CNS ionic homeostasis, promote remyelination and also stimulate neurogenesis from neural stem cells. Accordingly, a re-assessment of cytokine-activated astrocytes is necessary. Here, we review studies that promote the thesis that cytokines elicit potent neuroprotective and regenerative responses from astrocytes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".