Open-channel blockers of the NMDA receptor complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of compounds have been shown to limit or prevent excitotoxicity by blocking N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor-mediated neurotransmission. However, many first-generation NMDA antagonists did not live up to clinical expectations in trials of acute brain injury because of the manifestation of multiple side effects. In spite of this, development of NMDA antagonists continues, where some of the newer agents block excitotoxicity through alternative mechanisms. For example, blockers selective to the NR2B subunit or agents that block metabotropic glutamate receptors or alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors are currently under investigation. Several years ago, the arylalkylamine spider toxins were demonstrated to function as open-channel blockers similar to memantine, which was very recently approved by the U.S. FDA for use in patients with Alzheimer's dementia. With this said, programs focusing on NMDA antagonism via alternative mechanisms may still hold promise for treating acute injury and even chronic forms of dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".