Spinal cord injury‐induced lesional expression of the repulsive guidance molecule (RGM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The repulsive guidance molecule (RGM) is involved in the formation of the central nervous system (CNS) during development by modulating guidance of growing axons. However, a role of RGM in CNS injury remains to be established. We studied the expression of RGM in the spinal cord of rats with spinal cord injury (SCI). After SCI, RGM+ cells accumulated in lesions and peri-lesional areas. During the first days after SCI, RGM expression was confined to neurons, ballooned neurite fibers/retraction bulbs, smooth muscle/endothelial cells, and to leucocytes infiltrating the lesion. Lesional RGM expression was frequently confined to hypertrophic beta-APP+ and RhoA+ neurites/retraction bulbs. With maturation of the lesion, we observed RGM expression by components of the developing scar tissue (cicatrix), such as fibroblastoid cells, reactive astrocytes and in addition a pronounced extracellular RGM deposition resembling neo-laminae. Frequent RGM+, RhoA+ coexpression by lesional retraction bulbs represent first preliminary evidence of RGM to exert growth inhibitory effects by the second messenger system RhoA. To date, RGM is one of the most potent axonal growth inhibitors identified and present in axonal growth impediments (i) oligodendrocytes; (ii) the plexus choroideus and (iii) components of the developing scar.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".