MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086040829 · doi:10.1002/jnr.10803

Myelin‐associated inhibitors of axon regeneration

2003· review· en· W2086040829 on OpenAlexaff
Edith M. Grados‐Munro, Alyson E. Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxonMyelinNeuroscienceRegeneration (biology)BiologyCentral nervous systemInhibitory postsynaptic potentialCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma in the adult mammalian central nervous system (CNS) has devastating clinical consequences due to the failure of injured axons to spontaneously regenerate. Over 20 years ago, pioneering work demonstrated that the non-permissive nature of CNS myelin for axon outgrowth contributes to this regenerative failure. Over the past few years, tremendous progress has been made in our understanding of the inhibitory components of CNS myelin, the axonal receptors that respond to these cues, and the intracellular signaling cascades mediating axon outgrowth inhibition. Several approaches designed to antagonize molecular mediators of axon inhibition have been tested in an effort to promote regenerative growth after CNS injury. These studies have validated the role of many candidate proteins in axon outgrowth inhibition; however, other approaches such as the generation of knockout mice for myelin-associated inhibitors have created new questions in the field.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207