MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051509234 · doi:10.1080/13506120802524858

<i>In situ</i>A<b>beta</b>pores in AD brain are cylindrical assembly of A<b>beta</b>protofilaments

2008· article· en· W2051509234 on OpenAlexafffund
Sadayuki Inoué

Bibliographic record

VenueAmyloid · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsBiophysicsFibrilMembraneAmyloid (mycology)ChemistryExtracellularTransmission electron microscopyCrystallographyIn situOrganelleAmyloid betaIn vitroMaterials sciencePeptideBiochemistryNanotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the amyloid pore hypothesis, pores formed by small oligomers of misfolded amyloidogenic proteins cause membrane leakage with the unregulated rapid influx of ions leading to cell death. Ultrastructurally, pores reconstituted in vitro have mainly been characterised so far, and the presence of in situ pores in the amyloid tissues has not yet been demonstrated. In this study, the presence of in situbeta amyloid (Abeta) pores was shown with high resolution transmission electron microscopy, in the neuronal cell membrane as well as in the membrane of mitochondria-like organelles in the brain with Alzheimer's disease. They are 16 nm wide and 11 nm long flat columnar structures made up of a single cylindrical layer (wall) of laterally associated Abeta protofilaments which surrounds a 10 nm wide opening or lumen. Protofilaments are the basic unit of the fibrils of all amyloid-forming proteins and peptides. Individual extracellular Abeta protofilaments were 2-3 nm wide straight tubular structures with helical wall formed by the tight coiling of 1 nm wide Abeta filaments. These in situ Abeta pores are similar but not identical to in vitro reconstituted Abeta pores.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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