MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065934182 · doi:10.1021/cn500303k

Memantine Plus Vitamin D Prevents Axonal Degeneration Caused by Lysed Blood

2015· article· en· W2065934182 on OpenAlexaff
David Charier, Olivier Beauchet, Morgane Bell, Bernard Brugg, Robert Bartha, Cédric Annweiler

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Chemical Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemantineNeuroprotectionMedicinePharmacologyNeuroactive steroidAnesthesiaNeurotoxicityExcitotoxicityGlutamate receptorInternal medicineNMDA receptorToxicityReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracranial hemorrhage, whether due to traumatic brain injury or ruptured cerebral aneurysm, is characterized by major neurological damage and a high mortality rate. Apart from cerebral vasospasm and mass effect, brain injury results from the release of unclotted blood that contacts neurons causing calcic stress. The combination of memantine with vitamin D, a neurosteroid hormone, may prevent blood neurotoxicity. Our purpose was to examine the potential protective effects of memantine + vitamin D against lysed or clotted blood in cortical neuronal cultures. We provide the first evidence that cortical axons in contact with lysed blood degenerate less after exposure to lysed blood in microfluidic neuronal cultures enriched with both memantine and vitamin D compared to control medium and cultures enriched with only memantine or only vitamin D. The reported synergistic neuroprotective effect of memantine + vitamin D, the combination originating an effect stronger than the sum, strongly encourages using both drugs following intracranial hemorrhage.

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 score0.005

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Chemical NeuroscienceSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207