MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117440560 · doi:10.1002/jnr.20724

Temporally specific proliferation events are induced in the hippocampus following acute focal injury

2005· article· en· W2117440560 on OpenAlexafffund
Carl Ernst, Brian R. Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeurogenesisBromodeoxyuridineSubgranular zoneDentate gyrusHippocampusLesionBiologyNeurosciencePathologyMedicineCell biologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyNeural stem cellStem cellImmunohistochemistrySubventricular zone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In models of global brain injury, such as stroke or epilepsy, a large increase in neurogenesis occurs in the dentate gyrus (DG) days after the damage is induced. In contrast, more focal damage in the DG produces an increase in neurogenesis within 24 hr. To determine how cell proliferation and differentiation differs in the DG after acute injury in the DG, focal electrolytic lesions were made and mitotic activity was assessed at early (1 day) and late (5 day) time points. At the early time point, bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU)-positive cells were diffusely spread throughout the extent of the hippocampus that was ipsilateral to the lesion. No significant increase in the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the DG was observed. When BrdU was administered at the later time point, the number of BrdU+ cells in the SGZ of the DG was significantly increased. This fourfold increase in BrdU+ cells also resulted in a significant increase in neurogenesis, as measured 6 weeks following BrdU administration. This increase in neurogenesis was not observed when BrdU was administered at the early time point. These results indicate that focal injury in the DG activates two temporally specific proliferation events and that enhanced neurogenesis is observed only following a latent period after the lesion is made.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207