MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986834054 · doi:10.3109/08977194.2015.1010642

Nerve growth factor protects retinal ganglion cells against injury induced by retinal ischemia–reperfusion in rats

2015· article· en· W1986834054 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Chen, Haitao Wang, Su-Fen Liao, Yang Gao, Rifang Liao, Peter J. Little, Jiangping Xu, Zhong‐Ping Feng, Yongxin Zheng, Wenhua Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueGrowth Factors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNerve growth factorRetinaNeuroprotectionProtein kinase BRetinal ganglion cellRetinalPhosphorylationApoptosisIschemiaNeuroscienceMedicineEndocrinologyCell biologyBiologyInternal medicineOphthalmologyReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigated the protective effect of mouse nerve growth factor (NGF) on retinal ganglion cell (RGC) injury induced by retinal ischemia-reperfusion (RIR) in rats and explored its possible mechanisms of action. RIR caused a significant injury to RGCs and an obvious impairment of the inner retina functions, which could be seen from flash electroretinogram and flash visual evoked potential recordings. RIR also increased the expression of the apoptotic protein Bax while decreasing the expression of Bcl-2 and the phosphorylation of protein kinase B (Akt) in RGCs. Preinjection (i.m.) of NGF for 22 d reversed the injury induced by RIR and ameliorated the inner retina functions. NGF also reduced the expression of Bax and reversed the reduction of Bcl-2 and the phosphorylated Akt induced by RIR. These results indicate that NGF produces a neuroprotective effect on RGCs against RIR injury and the protective effect of NGF is mainly mediated by the PI-3K/Akt signaling pathway.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrowth FactorsSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207