Olfactory ensheathing cells: Historical perspective and therapeutic potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".