Development of the blood‐brain barrier: A historical point of view
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been considerable controversy since the observation by Ehrlich more than 100 years ago that the brain did not take up dyes from the vascular system, the concept of an endothelial blood-brain barrier (BBB) was confirmed by the unequivocal demonstration that the passage of molecules from blood to brain and vice versa was prevented by endothelial tight junctions (TJs). There are three major functions implicated in the term "BBB": protection of the brain from the blood milieu, selective transport, and metabolism or modification of blood- or brain-borne substances. The BBB phenotype develops under the influence of associated brain cells, especially astrocytic glia, and consists of complex TJs and a number of specific transport and enzyme systems that regulate molecular traffic across the endothelial cells. The development of the BBB is a complex process that leads to endothelial cells with unique permeability characteristics due to high electrical resistance and the expression of specific transporters and metabolic pathways. This review article summarizes the historical background underlying our current knowledge of the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of the BBB.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it