MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031952471 · doi:10.1177/135245850000600108

Macrophages: their myelinotrophic or neurotoxic actions depend upon tissue oxidative stress

2000· article· en· W2031952471 on OpenAlexaff
B. H. J. Juurlink, Richard M. Devon

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCameco (Canada)
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsOxidative stressMenadioneMacrophageMyelinLesionInflammationBiologyChemistryCell biologyImmunologyBiochemistryPathologyEndocrinologyIn vitroCentral nervous systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are still questions regarding whether macrophages found in MS lesions are agents of recovery or of destruction. To address this, we examined in aggregate cultures prepared from dissociated embryonic spinal cord tissue, with or without addition of exogenous macrophages, the effect of menadione-induced oxidative stress. Similar to findings of other laboratories, we observed that in the absence of oxidative stress macrophage enrichment promoted myelinogenesis. In macrophage-poor cultures, menadione at 5 microM had very little effect upon the status of the aggregate cultures; however, increasing this to 10 and 20 microM did result in some damage to axons and myelin. By contrast, in macrophage enriched cultures, menadione at a concentration as little as 5 microM caused the complete destruction of the aggregates. We suggest that in neural tissues that have sufficiently high macrophage numbers, oxidative stress results in a positive inflammatory feedback loop that results in massive tissue destruction. We further suggest that what we see in macrophage-enriched aggregates subjected to oxidative stress may represent what happens in the Marburg-type of MS lesion.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207