MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038019937 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019247

Biomarkers for Severity of Spinal Cord Injury in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Rats

2011· article· en· W2038019937 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna M. Lubieniecka, Femke Streijger, Jae H.T. Lee, Nikolay Stoynov, Jie Liu, Randy Mottus, Tom Pfeifer, Brian K. Kwon, Jens R. Coorssen, Leonard J. Foster, Thomas A. Grigliatti, Wolfram Tetzlaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsCentre for Drug Research and DevelopmentInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMedicineCerebrospinal fluidBiomarkerSpinal cordBiomarker discoveryInternal medicinePathologyBioinformaticsProteomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major challenges in management of spinal cord injury (SCI) is that the assessment of injury severity is often imprecise. Identification of reliable, easily quantifiable biomarkers that delineate the severity of the initial injury and that have prognostic value for the degree of functional recovery would significantly aid the clinician in the choice of potential treatments. To find such biomarkers we performed quantitative liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analyses of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) collected from rats 24 h after either a moderate or severe SCI. We identified a panel of 42 putative biomarkers of SCI, 10 of which represent potential biomarkers of SCI severity. Three of the candidate biomarkers, Ywhaz, Itih4, and Gpx3 were also validated by Western blot in a biological replicate of the injury. The putative biomarkers identified in this study may potentially be a valuable tool in the assessment of the extent of spinal cord damage.

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 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations70
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207