MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural Stem Cells Improve Memory in an Inducible Mouse Model of Neuronal Loss

2007· article· en· W1975596483 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tritia R. Yamasaki, Mathew Blurton‐Jones, Debbi Ann Morrissette, Masashi Kitazawa, Salvatore Oddo, Frank M. LaFerla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Science CouncilYork UniversityCalifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicine
KeywordsStem cellNeural stem cellNeuroscienceHippocampusTransgeneMemory impairmentGenetically modified mousePathologicalBiologyMedicinePathologyCell biologyCognitionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuronal loss is a major pathological outcome of many common neurological disorders, including ischemia, traumatic brain injury, and Alzheimer disease. Stem cell-based approaches have received considerable attention as a potential means of treatment, although it remains to be determined whether stem cells can ameliorate memory dysfunction, a devastating component of these disorders. We generated a transgenic mouse model in which the tetracycline-off system is used to regulate expression of diphtheria toxin A chain. After induction, we find progressive neuronal loss primarily within the hippocampus, leading to specific impairments in memory. We find that neural stem cells transplanted into the brain after neuronal ablation survive, migrate, differentiate and, most significantly, improve memory. These results show that stem cells may have therapeutic value in diseases and conditions that result in memory loss.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations162
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207