Development of the blood‐brain barrier: A historical point of view
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".