MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987156959 · doi:10.1038/srep00838

BDNF gene therapy induces auditory nerve survival and fiber sprouting in deaf Pou4f3 mutant mice

2012· article· en· W1987156959 on OpenAlexaff
H. Fukui, Hiu-Tung Wong, Lisa A. Beyer, Ben Case, Donald L. Swiderski, Adriana Di Polo, Allen F. Ryan, Yehoash Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsSproutingCochleaCochlear nerveNerve fiberMutantMedicineInner earHearing lossNeuroscienceBiologyAudiologyGeneGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current therapy for patients with hereditary absence of cochlear hair cells, who have severe or profound deafness, is restricted to cochlear implantation, a procedure that requires survival of the auditory nerve. Mouse mutations that serve as models for genetic deafness can be utilized for developing and enhancing therapies for hereditary deafness. A mouse with Pou4f3 loss of function has no hair cells and a subsequent, progressive degeneration of auditory neurons. Here we tested the influence of neurotrophin gene therapy on auditory nerve survival and peripheral sprouting in Pou4f3 mouse ears. BDNF gene transfer enhanced preservation of auditory neurons compared to control ears, in which nearly all neurons degenerated. Surviving neurons in treated ears exhibited pronounced sprouting of nerve fibers into the auditory epithelium, despite the absence of hair cells. This enhanced nerve survival and regenerative sprouting may improve the outcome of cochlear implant therapy in patients with hereditary deafness.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations64
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207