MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Genomic, Biochemical, and Cellular Responses of the Retina in Inherited Photoreceptor Degenerations and Prospects for the Treatment of These Disorders

2010· review· en· W2110481129 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexa N. Bramall, Alan F. Wright, Samuel G. Jacobson, Roderick R. McInnes

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenJewish General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRetinaBiologyRetinal degenerationPhotoreceptor cellNeuroscienceRetinitis pigmentosaMicrogliaCiliumRetinalNeurodegenerationOxidative stressCell biologyMedicinePathologyInflammationDiseaseEndocrinologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The association of more than 140 genes with human photoreceptor degenerations, together with studies of animal models of these monogenic diseases, has provided great insight into their pathogenesis. Here we review the responses of the retina to photoreceptor mutations, including mechanisms of photoreceptor death. We discuss the roles of oxidative metabolism, mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, metabolic stress, protein misfolding, and defects in ciliary proteins, as well as the responses of Müller glia, microglia, and the retinal vasculature. Finally, we report on potential pharmacologic and biologic therapies, the critical role of histopathology as a prerequisite to treatment, and the exciting promise of gene therapy in animal models and in phase 1 trials in humans.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations151
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207