MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970508859 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e31817841f7

Molecular and Cell‐Based Approaches for Neuroprotection in Glaucoma

2008· review· en· W1970508859 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsNeuroprotectionOptic nerveGlaucomaRetinal ganglion cellNeuroscienceAxonIntraocular pressureMedicineRetinaBiologyOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hallmark of glaucomatous optic nerve damage is retinal ganglion cell (RGC) death. RGCs, like other central nervous system neurons, have a limited capacity to survive or regenerate an axon after injury. Strategies that prevent or slow down RGC degeneration, in combination with intraocular pressure management, may be beneficial to preserve vision in glaucoma. Recent progress in neurobiological research has led to a better understanding of the molecular pathways that regulate the survival of injured RGCs. Here we discuss a variety of experimental strategies including intraocular delivery of neuroprotective molecules, viral-mediated gene transfer, cell implants and stem cell therapies, which share the ultimate goal of promoting RGC survival after optic nerve damage. The challenge now is to assess how this wealth of knowledge can be translated into viable therapies for the treatment of glaucoma and other optic neuropathies.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.346 · 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