MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109378266 · doi:10.1002/mus.24136

Skin‐derived precursor schwann cell myelination capacity in focal tibial demyelination

2013· article· en· W2109378266 on OpenAlexafffund
Joey Grochmal, S.K. Dhaliwal, Peter K. Stys, Jan van Minnen, Rajiv Midha

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaHotchkiss Brain Institute
KeywordsSchwann cellMyelinTibial nerveSOX10Myelin basic proteinCompound muscle action potentialAnatomyPathologyBiologyElectrophysiologyNeuroscienceCell biologyNeural crestMedicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Skin-derived precursor cells (SKPs) are neural crest progenitor cells that can attain a Schwann cell-like phenotype through in vitro techniques (SKP-SCs). We hypothesized that SKP-SCs could produce mature myelin and, in doing so, facilitate the recovery of a focal demyelination injury. METHODS: We unilaterally injected DiI-labeled, green fluorescent protein (GFP)-producing SKP-SCs into the tibial nerves of 10 adult Lewis rats (with contralateral media control), 9 days after bilateral doxorubicin injury (0.38 μg). Tibial compound motor action potentials (CMAPs) were followed for 57 days. A separate morphometric cohort also included a Schwann cell injection group. RESULTS: SKP-injected nerves recovered fastest in terms of electrophysiology and morphometry. SKP-SCs formed morphologically mature myelin, accounting for 15.3 ± 5.3% of the total myelin in SKP-SC-injected nerves. CONCLUSIONS: SKP-SCs are robustly capable of myelination. They improve the recovery of a focal tibial nerve demyelination model by myelinating a measured percentage of axons.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207