MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Need for Animal Models in Small-Vessel Brain Disease

2006· review· en· W1990633985 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Hua, Wolfgang Walz

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Neurobiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParenchymaLesionMechanism (biology)Stroke (engine)Lacunar strokeCavitationIschemiaMedicinePathologyInflammationNeuroscienceCardiologyIschemic strokeBiologyInternal medicineMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An argument is made that small-vessel stroke, which usually results in lacunar infarction, is a serious medical problem. Therefore, it is surprising that only a few animal models exist that mimic small-vessel stroke and that these models have not been used for a systematic investigation of the genesis of lacunar infarctions. We make a case that the modified pial vessel class II disruption model mimics certain important aspects of lacunar infarctions, namely cavitation caused specifically by ischemia of smaller vessels. We found evidence that upregulation of inflammatory properties within a few days of inducing lesions prevents repopulation of the lesion with reactive astrocytes. We propose that this is the key mechanism by which cavitation occurs weeks later. We also found that treatment with minocycline after induction of lesions but before cavitation prevented the formation of the fluid-filled cavity. Rather than being walled off, the lesion apparently became part of the brain parenchyma and consisted of reactive astrocytes. We conclude that this new model can be used to investigate the mechanism of lacune formation and its prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in NeurobiologySame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207