MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002453811 · doi:10.1002/dneu.20360

Neurotrophic rationale in glaucoma: A TrkA agonist, but not NGF or a p75 antagonist, protects retinal ganglion cells<i>in vivo</i>

2007· article· en· W2002453811 on OpenAlexaff
Zhihua Shi, Elena Birman, H. Uri Saragovi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurobiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsTropomyosin receptor kinase ANerve growth factorLow-affinity nerve growth factor receptorNeurotrophinAgonistBiologyNeurotrophic factorsGlaucomaRetinal ganglion cellNeuroscienceRetinaReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma is a major cause of vision impairment, which arises from the sustained and progressive apoptosis of retinal ganglion cells (RGC), with ocular hypertension being a major risk or co-morbidity factor. Because RGC death often continues after normalization of ocular hypertension, growth factor-mediated protection of compromised neurons may be useful. However, the therapeutic use of nerve growth factor (NGF) has not proven effective at delaying RGC death in glaucoma. We postulated that one cause for the failure of NGF may be related to its binding to two receptors, TrkA and p75. These receptors have distinct cellular distribution in the retina and in neurons they induce complex and sometimes opposing activities. Here, we show in an in vivo therapeutic model of glaucoma that a selective agonist of the pro-survival TrkA receptor was effective at preventing RGC death. RGC loss was fully prevented by combining the selective agonist of TrkA with intraocular pressure-lowering drugs. In contrast, neither NGF nor an antagonist of the pro-apoptotic p75 receptor protected RGCs. These results further a neurotrophic rationale for glaucoma.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurobiologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207