MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stereological Analysis on Migration of Human Neural Stem Cells in the Brain of Rats Bearing Glioma

2010· article· en· W1998789490 on OpenAlexaff
Jae Ho Kim, Jong Eun Lee, Seung Up Kim, Kyung Gi Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaHuman brainNeural stem cellBearing (navigation)NeurosciencePathologyStem cellCell biologyCancer researchArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the rate and pattern of NSC migration in the brain and its time course after NSC transplantation. METHODS: We investigated the tropism of HB1.F3 (F3) immortalized human NSCs in rats bearing U373 human glioma in the brain. Rats received an injection of human U373MG malignant glioma cells into the striatum followed by an injection of F3 cells into the contralateral hemisphere 7 days later. We analyzed the numbers, distribution, and migration rate of NSCs using unbiased stereology. RESULTS: Approximately 10% of the injected NSCs migrated into the tumor region by 50 minutes after NSC injection. The number of NSCs in the tumor region increased slowly up to 5 days post-injection and increased significantly up to 15 days post-injection. Changes in tumor volume showed similar patterns. The rate of NSC migration was approximately 175 microm/min. NSCs increased in number approximately 1.7-fold during day 1 in the absence of tumor cell inoculation in vivo. However, the proliferation of NSCs began to decline after 5 days after injection. CONCLUSION: We identified for the first time the rate and pattern of NSC migration to the tumor mass in vivo. These findings may provide useful information with respect to preclinical research of gene therapy for malignant gliomas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207