Reduction in TrkA‐Immunoreactive Neurons Is Not Associated with an Overexpression of Galaninergic Fibers Within the Nucleus Basalis in Down's Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Down's syndrome (DS) individuals develop neuropathological features similar to Alzheimer's disease (AD), including degeneration of cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) neurons. In AD a reduction in CBF/trkA-containing neurons has been suggested to trigger a hyperexpression of galaninergic fibers within the nucleus basalis subfield of the basal forebrain. The present study examined the interrelationship between reductions in CBF/trkA-containing neurons and the overexpression of galaninergic fibers within the nucleus basalis in DS. Within the nucleus basalis stereologic evaluation revealed a 46% reduction in the number of trkA-immunopositive neurons, whereas optical density measurements displayed a nonsignificant 18% reduction in neuronal trkA immunoreactivity in DS as compared with age-matched controls. Western blot analysis also showed a significant reduction in cortical trkA protein levels in DS. A semiquantitative examination of galaninergic fibers in the nucleus basalis revealed only a modest hypertrophy of galaninergic fibers within the nucleus basalis in DS. The present findings indicate a significant reduction in trkA within the nucleus basalis and cortex with only a moderate hypertrophy of galaninergic fibers in DS. These observations suggest that DS may not be an exact genetic model for investigation of changes in the AD basal forebrain.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".