MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001954879 · doi:10.1111/micc.12188

Astrocyte and Microvascular Imaging in Awake Animals Using Two‐Photon Microscopy

2015· review· en· W2001954879 on OpenAlexafffund
Cam Ha T. Tran, Grant R. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrocirculation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsNeuroscienceAstrocyteTwo-photon excitation microscopyIn vivoCerebral blood flowPremovement neuronal activityArterioleVasodilationMedicineMicrocirculationBiologyAnesthesiaCentral nervous systemInternal medicineFluorescencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurovascular coupling is an important control mechanism in CBF regulation. New insights into the integrated relationship between synaptic activity, astrocytes Ca(2+) , and cerebral blood vessels using two-photon fluorescence imaging are slowly emerging. Here, we provide a brief overview of the current understandings and controversies regarding astrocytes in activity-dependent vasodilation. We highlight the key advantages and disadvantages of the in vitro and in vivo methodologies used to study this topic. In particular, we emphasize some of the drawbacks of acute brain slices as well as the confounding effects of anesthesia in in vivo preparations. To overcome these limitations, we discuss an emerging and important trend in imaging cell Ca(2+) and blood flow control in awake and behaving animals. This new approach may help resolve existing controversies on astrocyte control of arteriole diameter by providing a more physiologically relevant preparation to study CBF regulation.

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)0.000
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrocirculationSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207