MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981007709 · doi:10.1515/revneuro-2013-0041

Protein markers of cerebrovascular disruption of neurovascular unit: immunohistochemical and imaging approaches

2014· review· en· W1981007709 on OpenAlexaff
Zareen Amtul, Jeffrey D. Hepburn

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in the Neurosciences · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleNeurosciencePathologyImmunohistochemistryIschemiaMedicineBlood–brain barrierCentral nervous systemProtein expressionBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, there is great interest in the assembly and function of cerebral endothelial, glial and neuronal cells that form the anatomical basis of the neurovascular unit (NVU) to maintain blood-brain barrier (BBB) and cerebral blood flow. Recent studies have provided considerable insight into the assembly of the components of the NVU. However, there is still paucity of data regarding the identification and expression pattern of these components in various pathologies of the central nervous system. Here, we provide a brief overview of the histological and imaging methods to study BBB disruption in various experimental settings especially the ischemia models associated with necrosis. Emphasis is on the immunohistochemistry of various protein markers of NVU. An understanding of the alterations in the expression pattern of these markers in various neurodegenerative disorders could lead to a better understanding of the conditions that cause BBB disruption as well as to the development of new restorative and protective treatments.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in the NeurosciencesSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207