MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nerve Growth Factor and Neuroimmune Interactions in Inflammatory Diseases

2000· review· en· W2131920027 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Stanisz, Jolanta Stanisz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNerve growth factorNeurotrophinGlial cell line-derived neurotrophic factorNeuroscienceInflammationNeurotrophic factorsMediatorImmune systemGrowth factorBiologyReceptorImmunologyCell biologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discovered almost 50 years ago, nerve growth factor (NGF) has been extensively studied in various biological systems. NGF has recently been suggested to play an important role in mediating and/or regulating immune response, in addition to its trophic and tropic effects on nerve growth and regeneration It is clear that in complex interactions between immune cells and nervous system NGF plays a central role. We have only just begun to identify and understand the direct mechanisms by which NGF activates target cells, the precise identity of the target cells, and the particular factors released from target cells. Nerve growth factor together with possibly other neurotrophins such as BDNF (brain-derived nerve growth factor), GDNF (glial-derived nerve growth factor) or NT3 are important modulators of immunity. More detailed studies are needed at the receptor, mediator and cellular levels to better understand the neuroimmunomodulatory properties of neurothrophins and NGF. The nature of the involvement of NGF in inflammation and inflammatory diseases remains a particularly interesting question. By blocking NGF or mediators released upon NGF activation, we are able to control the progress of inflammation, thereby opening many therapeutic opportunities for the future.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.397
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 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

Citations41
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207