MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023924027 · doi:10.1002/mus.23295

GDNF released from microspheres enhances nerve regeneration after delayed repair

2012· article· en· W2023924027 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Wood, Howard Kim, Alex Bilbily, Stephen W.P. Kemp, Christine Lafontaine, Tessa Gordon, Molly S. Shoichet, Gregory H. Borschel

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosphereRegeneration (biology)Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factorMedicineNeurotrophic factorsCell biologyInternal medicineBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Delays in surgical repair following nerve transection produce progressively inferior motor nerve regeneration. Regeneration can be improved with delivery of exogenous growth factor. We developed a delivery system that could be applied at the nerve repair site to deliver growth factors locally to regenerating nerve. METHODS: Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres containing glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) suspended within fibrin were developed into a delivery system for local application surrounding nerve at a repair site in an experimental rat model. RESULTS: The system containing GDNF remained at the injury site for up to 2 weeks and improved motor nerve regeneration following chronic axotomy and denervation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the positive outcome of the delivery system, we plan to study the delivery system over longer time courses of release and nerve regeneration.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207