MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967794810 · doi:10.1002/ar.b.10011

Olfactory ensheathing cells: Historical perspective and therapeutic potential

2003· review· en· W1967794810 on OpenAlexaff
J. Gordon Boyd, Viktor Skihar, Michael D. Kawaja, R. Doucette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record Part B The New Anatomist · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactory ensheathing gliaNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemSpinal cord injurySpinal cordMultiple sclerosisSchwann cellNervous systemBiologyNeurogliaDemyelinating DisorderMedicineAnatomyImmunologyOlfactory bulb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) are the glial cells that ensheath the axons of the first cranial nerve. They are attracting increasing attention from neuroscientists as potential therapeutic agents for use in the repair of spinal cord injury and as a source of myelinating glia for use in remyelinating axons in demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis. This review mainly addresses the cell biological aspects of OECs pertinent to addressing two questions. Namely, where do OECs fit into the groupings of central nervous system (CNS)/peripheral nervous system (PNS) glial cells and should OECs be viewed as a clinically relevant alternative to Schwann cells in the treatment of spinal cord injury? The evidence indicates that OECs are indeed a clinically relevant alternative to Schwann cells. However, much more work needs to be done before we can even come close to answering the first question as to the lineage and functional relationship of OECs to the other types of CNS and PNS glial cells.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations81
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical Record Part B The New AnatomistSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207