MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045999406 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2014.00209

A Novel Mouse Model of Penetrating Brain Injury

2014· article· en· W2045999406 on OpenAlexaff
Ibolja Černak, I. D. Wing, Johan Davidsson, Stefan Plantman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKarolinska InstitutetJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI) has been difficult to model in small laboratory animals, such as rats or mice. Previously, we have established a non-fatal, rat model for pTBI using a modified air-rifle that accelerates a pellet, which hits a small probe that then penetrates the experimental animal's brain. Knockout and transgenic strains of mice offer attractive tools to study biological reactions induced by TBI. Hence, in the present study, we adapted and modified our model to be used with mice. The technical characterization of the impact device included depth and speed of impact, as well as dimensions of the temporary cavity formed in a brain surrogate material after impact. Biologically, we have focused on three distinct levels of severity (mild, moderate, and severe), and characterized the acute phase response to injury in terms of tissue destruction, neural degeneration, and gliosis. Functional outcome was assessed by measuring bodyweight and motor performance on rotarod. The results showed that this model is capable of reproducing major morphological and neurological changes of pTBI; as such, we recommend its utilization in research studies aiming to unravel the biological events underlying injury and regeneration after pTBI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207