MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969095994 · doi:10.1089/neu.2000.17.899

Apoptosis After Experimental Stroke: Fact or Fashion?

2000· review· en· W1969095994 on OpenAlexaff
John P. MacManus, Alastair M. Buchan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApoptosisNecrosisProgrammed cell deathNeuroscienceGene expressionBiologyGeneNeuronCell biologyContext (archaeology)IschemiaPathologyBioinformaticsMedicineGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review examines the appearance of hallmarks of apoptosis following experimental stroke. The reviewed literature leaves no doubt that ischemic cell death in the brain is active, that is, requires energy; is gene directed, that is, requires new gene expression; and is capase-mediated, that is, uses apoptotic proteolytic machinery. However, sufficient differences to both classical necrosis and apoptosis exist which prevent easy mechanistic classification. It is concluded that ischemic cell death in the brain is neither necrosis nor apoptosis but is a chimera which appears on a continuum that has apoptosis and necrosis at the poles. The position on this continuum could be modulated by the intensity of the ischemic injury, the consequent availability of ATP and new protein synthesis, and both the age and context of the neuron in question. Thus the ischemic neuron may look necrotic but have actively died in an energy dependent manner with new gene expression and destruction via the apoptotic proteolytic machinery.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations139
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207