MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurotrophins and other growth factors in the regenerative milieu of proximal nerve stump tips

2000· article· en· W2150530189 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas W. Zochodne, Chu Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurotrophinCiliary neurotrophic factorAxonRegeneration (biology)Regenerative processImmunohistochemistryNerve growth factorPeripheralBiologyNeurotrophic factorsNeuroscienceTrunkSciatic nerveAnatomyPeripheral nervous systemCell biologyPathologyMedicineCentral nervous systemInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classic ideas on mechanisms for axon sprouting and nerve regeneration from peripheral nerves suggest that there is a prominent role for neurotrophin support. There has been comparatively less attention towards features of the regenerative process that develop from the proximal nerve trunk without the support of target tissues or the denervated trunk of a peripheral nerve. We studied early (2-14 d) expression of local growth factors in proximal nerve stump tips of transected sciatic nerves in rats. Immunohistochemical labelling was used to address specific deposition of BDNF, NGF, NT-3, bFGF, CNTF and IGF-1. We observed a unique localisation of BDNF, and to a much lesser extent, NGF in mast cells of injured nerve trunks but they were also observed in intact uninjured nerves. Macrophages did not express either BDNF or NGF. CNTF and IGF-1 were expressed in Schwann cells of intact nerves and stumps. We did not observe bFGF or NT-3 expression in any of the samples we studied. Mast cells may represent an important reservoir of BDNF in peripheral nerves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207