MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intracellular and Extracellular Aβ, a Tale of Two Neuropathologies

2006· review· en· W2018188862 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Claudio Cuello

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Pathology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsExtracellularIntracellularNeuroscienceNeuriteBiologyPathologicalAmyloid (mycology)SynapseAlzheimer's diseaseCell biologyPathologyDiseaseMedicineBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central pathological cause of Alzheimer disease (AD) is hypothesized to be an excess of beta-amyloid (Abeta) which accumulates into toxic fibrillar deposits within extracellular areas of the brain. These deposits disrupt neural and synaptic function and ultimately lead to neuronal degeneration and dementia. In addition to the pathological roles attributed to Abeta, evidence from our laboratory would suggest that Abeta serves a physiological role in the modulation of CRE-directed gene expression. This commentary also highlights some of the pathological consequences of the accumulation of intracellular Abeta. Finally it discusses the impact of cortical Abeta burden on transmitter-specific synaptic numbers as well as the generation of dystrophic neurites. The fundamental thesis of my proposal is that the Abeta pathology seen in AD is a continuous process from an initial abnormal Abeta intracellular accumulation to the well-established extracellular Abeta aggregation, culminating in the formation of amyloid plaques and dystrophic neurites.

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)0.000
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations76
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain PathologySame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207