MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105194283 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00377

Harnessing the power of neuroplasticity for intervention

2014· review· en· W2105194283 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Kolb, Arif Muhammad

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroplasticityNeuroscienceIntervention (counseling)PsychologyTraumatic brain injuryMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental property of the brain is its capacity to change with a wide range of experiences including injury. The spontaneous reparative changes that follow injury may reverse some of the nonspecific degenerative changes but without experiential, physiological, or pharmacological assistance, the spontaneous reparative changes rarely lead to significant behavioral restitution. As we learn more about the principles of brain plasticity we are gradually moving towards the development of novel treatments to facilitate behavioral compensation, and perhaps even some recovery, after cortical injury. We review factors that affect synaptic organization in the normal brain, evidence of spontaneous neuroplasticity after injury, and the evidence that factors including postinjury experience, pharmacotherapy, and cell-based therapies, can form the basis of rehabilitation strategies after brain injuries early in life and in adulthood.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207