MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994831703 · doi:10.1159/000247591

Retinal Ganglion Cell Death Postponed: Giving Apoptosis a Break?

2009· review· en· W1994831703 on OpenAlexaff
Lilian Kisiswa, Adrian Dervan, Julie Albon, Michael A. Wride

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Research · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKTrinity College DublinNational Research Centre
KeywordsCaspaseProgrammed cell deathApoptosisCell biologyBiologyDendrite (mathematics)NeuroscienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma is characterised by the preferential death of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). However, mammalian models indicate that neurons pass through a period in which they manifest signs of neuronal damage, but have yet to fully commit to death. Mounting evidence suggests that one of the clearest indications of this process is the reduction in RGC dendritic arborisation, resulting in functional compromise. The extent to which this may be reversible is unclear, since the molecular events that precede changes in dendritic structure have received little attention. Furthermore, there are likely to be many factors involved in this process potentially acting in different individual cells at different times. Recent work in Drosophila shows that dendritic reorganisation/remodelling involves local activation and tight regulation of caspase activity. Here, we propose a model in which the balance between caspases and inhibitors of apoptosis (IAPs) contributes towards the regulation of dendritic remodelling. Thus, RGC dendrite reorganisation and cell death represent opposite ends of a spectrum of events regulated by apoptosis signalling pathways. We summarise relevant events in apoptosis, focusing on caspases and IAPs. We also discuss mechanisms of dendrite development, structure and reorganisation and the implications for early diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma and neurodegenerative disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic ResearchSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207