Reply: Is inhibition of axonal regeneration by astrocytes, in the dorsal part of the spinal cord, regulated by p75 receptor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The p75 neurotrophin receptor is a binding or signalling partner for a long list of receptors and ligands. In neurons, p75 neurotrophin receptor expression regulates the binding affinity between Trk receptors and growth-promoting neurotrophins, as well as their binding specificity (Roux and Barker, 2002). Neuronal p75 neurotrophin receptor also transduces growth inhibition conferred by myelin-derived proteins (McGee and Strittmatter, 2003). These cis interactions are much better understood than those occurring in trans, which may be equally important where glial cells, such as Schwann cells in peripheral nerves, express p75 neurotrophin receptor at high levels. A hypothesized trans role for Schwann cell p75 neurotrophin receptor in peripheral nerve regeneration involves its ‘presentation’ of neurotrophins (themselves produced by Schwann cells) to regenerating Trk-expressing axons (Johnson et al., 1988). In our recent paper, we showed that Schwann cell p75 neurotrophin receptor, rather than presenting neurotrophins to axons, actually reduces their availability: in p75 neurotrophin receptor knockout mice, reactive Schwann cells in injured dorsal roots prompted neurotrophin-dependent axonal regeneration into the spinal cord (Scott and Ramer, 2010).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".